Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Evolution & Humani Generis

I think the summary of Humani Generis in the encyclicals section perhaps mis-summarizes the encyclical a bit. One thing that might clarify things would be include a fuller quote such as:

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

or perhaps

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that... research and discussions... take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

Also the opening sentence:

"Humani Generis, promulgated in 1950, was critical of the theory of evolution and evolutionary biologists who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution...explains the origin of all things". "

Might be better if made somewhat along the lines of:

"Humani Generis, promulgated in 1950, was critical of evolutionary biologists who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution...explains the origin of all things" while at the same time holding that the theory of evolution might, with further study, be found to explain the biological origins of species."

Brendanhodge 04:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No block quote here. Its not notable enough compared to the other encyclicals to do that. Put extra details like that in the Humani Generis article itself. Youd proposed addition is more confusing in my opinion and more POV because it cloaks the idea that evolution doesnt explain biological existence now as fact. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a good point that the full quote is kind of long, though I think the quote as it currently stands mis-represents the encyclical as more anti-evolution than it in fact was. The basic point of the encyclical was that although Pius was not willing to concede that evolution was correct, that there was no theological reason why it could not be correct in explaining the biological origins of all life. What Pius wanted to make clear was that explaining the biological origins of life didn't necessarily preclude a supernatural origin to the human soul (which Catholic theology holds to be non-material).

This is the understanding of Humani Generis which Stephen Jay Gould presented in his article Non Overlapping Magisteria (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html) and since Gould was not a Catholic and was perhaps the most well regarded evolutionary biologist of the last twenty-five years, it seems reasonable to accept his assessment that Humani Generis allowed rather than banned belief in evolution's explanatory power. Brendanhodge 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put up a new edit of the Humani Generis paragraph, using the same quote as before but trying to provide more context. As per Savidan's feedback I've tried to avoid any appearance of suggesting via wording that that 'evolution doesnt explain biological existence now'. I've also provided a link to John Paul II's statement to the Pontical Academy, though I'm not sure that paragraph really belongs there, as it doesn't relate directly to Pius and the two popes differed on evolution more in degree that fact.

Finally, I removed 'conversely' from the beginning of the Big Bang section, since I thought the appositional phrasing didn't serve any particular purpose.Brendanhodge 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some cut and paste issues in the original implementation fixed.Brendanhodge 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I italicized a quote. I added some necessary details to the subject matter of evolution and Church teaching. I took out the word "accurately" because evolution is not an exact science to begin with. (Diligens 14:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Diligens, I'm seriously unsure about your phrase "an initial evolution of a species can describe the biological origins of human life". appropriate, as it does not fit well with the terminology generally used to discuss evolution.

Also I'm not sure about your definite exclusion of polygenism, since in the encyclical Pius says that it is unclear how polygenism could be compatible with original sin, not that it is not compatible. I would tend to think the current iteration is not an improvement, but I'm hesitant to roll it back without notice.Brendanhodge 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the problem with the word "initial"? I added this only because we were talking about origins.

I am not sure what your second objection is. Could you rephrase it maybe without using "polygenism"? Not exactly sure what you mean by that, but let me give it a shot. The Church insists that the whole human race came from only ONE pair of humans, a male and a female, each having their soul directly created by God, that is, their souls had no part in material evolution. I hope I touched upon what you meant to discuss here. (Diligens 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, I'm thinking "an evolution of species" sounds like a specific event rather than an ongoing process. To emphasize that you're talking about evolution in a physical sense and not some philosophically loaded term, I'd suggest just "biological evoluton" rather than the longer phrase.

Polygenism is the idea that the human race descends from a population rather than a single set of parents. The majority view is that Humani Generis completely rules out polygenism, however some theologians maintain that Humani Generis did not go this far, as it says "Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth" which could mean that while it is not currently apparent, it is possible.

Looking over it, I think the original version pretty much covered all the bases while using about half as many words:

The word "species" alone should already signify mere biology. I used the word "initial" because it is a quick way of showing that Pius XII condemned the notion of "continual" evolution.

You can always find a handful of "theologians" differing from the majority. The ones who see a possibility of polygenism are the ones who differ greatly with the past on many, many things, and are quite the minority, even radically breaking with things always taught. It has always been taught in the Catholic Church that the human race is from only one set of parents. Otherwise not everyone would have contracted original sin, and if that were case it would be a lie that Christ died for ALL men, and a lie that everyone needed to be baptized. Those minority theologians are simply wrong. One can look at Pius XII in the context of the way he always writes and see what he meant, without taking a sentence out of historical context and trying to twist word meanings. Pius XII saying, "in no way apparent" is to say that there is not the slightest semblance of it conforming to what the Church has always taught, as I already mentioned major contradictions. One contradiction is enough to exclude a semblance. From there you get into hypothetical possibility which is never admissible for any subject. (Diligens 10:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

While I don't necessarily agree with their position, I believe that those theologians who do hold out the possiblity of polygenism do not in fact deny that all humans have original sin. Original sin is not, after all, biological, and so in theory it might have been contracted by all humanity as the result of the fall of one test couple.

The Church teaches that it is biological, from the male. You can find that in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica which is searchable on-line at [[1]]. It is impossible for polygenism to be reconciled with Church teaching, and Pius XII did not say anything otherwise. (Diligens 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm a big fan of Aquinas, generally, but on this particular topic one should proceed with caution, since Aquinas' belief that original sin was passed on in this fashion resulted in his denying the Immaculat Conception -- holding instead that Our Lady was conceived with original sin but then purified of it through an act of divine generosity. That is precisely why the Church (as opposed to specific theologians, even truly brilliant ones like St. Thomas Aquinas) has not taught that original sin is passed on biologically. (Which, incidentally, would bring up some interesting questions if you cloned a woman -- thus producing an individual who at least in a certain sense had no father.)Brendanhodge 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot compare the Immaculate Conception with this issue for the precise reason that the IC issue was immediately, historically and continually debated. Not so with the issue we here are speaking of which has been universally and continually accepted. The important fact is not who said it, the importance is that it has been prominently taught without debate within Catholicism. (Your comment about IF a woman was cloned means nothing because you cannot use a hypothetical possibility as a premise in an argument.) Allow me however to show you that it most certainly is implied in other truths, which I have already mentioned. All people shows the signs of being infected with original sin. It is a dogma that ALL individuals of mankind MUST be baptized to have the chance to go to heaven and that Christ died for ALL men. Those two dogmas inherently exclude polygenism. Pius XII, while knowing the way he writes, was saying that polygenism cannot be reconciled. (Diligens 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

The amount of debate here is starting to get silly, but I just to take another shot: Clearly all people possess original sin, and we know from Catholic dogma that we possess original sin from the moment of conception. However, this does not necessarily mean either that original sin is inherited specifically from the father. I wasn't premising the argument on the possiblity of cloning so much as trying to illustrate by theoretical example that we have original sin because we are human and since the Fall all humans have had original sin. I don't think it's necessary to restrict it to biological inheritance from the father to affirm that truth. As for monogenism being universally accepted, I'd tend to say that's not surprising since there was little reason to question it (other than the odd reference to people mating with 'giants' or 'monsters' in Genesis) prior to evolution coming onto the scene.Brendanhodge 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion is not silly, it is merely less preferential. We were talking about polygenism, which means that the human race came from more than one parent. This is strictly incompatible with many doctrines, and Pius XII says it cannot be reconciled with Church teaching. There is no argument. Catholic reference books say that it is inherited by biological generation. Do you need me to verify this for you with a quote? The definition completely excludes the whole human race coming from anyone else than Adam and Eve. (Diligens 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm not going to persue this one further as I don't myself consider polygenism to be true (both current scientific evidence and Catholic teaching pointing towards a single human ancestor). Further, I'd suggest the discussion of polygenism is something that belongs in the Humani Generis main article, not in one paragraph summary. However, although I have no idea what 'reference books' you're reading -- I'd simply like to point out that there is a difference between original sin being received by virtue of your descent as a member of the human race, and it being inherited in a biological sense, much less specifically from one parent as opposed to the other. Sin is not, I would argue, a biological trait, and so cannot be inherrited biologically. That doesn't mean that all humans don't possess original sin from the moment of conception, however, it just means that there's more to existence than the physical world -- see discussion of monism below.Brendanhodge 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean by "continual evolution". Pius uses the phrase in Humani Generis, but in reference to the idea that the world itself is somehow changing in some theological or philosophical sense. (As in the ideas of historical development presented by classical Marxism.) While this belief is clearly worthy of condmnation, I can't see that it has anything to do with biology, which is why I made no mention of it here.

Pius XII said, "audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution". This includes evolution on all fronts, including and especially the physical/biological because it immediately follows his mention of, "in the domain of natural sciences". (Diligens 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

To quote the paragraph in full:

5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

It seems moderately clear that by 'all things' he indicates things beyond the biological/physical world. What he is talking about is the world changing in a substantial (in the Aristotelian sense) way, which would in turn suggest that natural law and morality is in a constant state of flux. This, clearly, is unacceptable from a Catholic point of view. But it has nothing to do with biology.Brendanhodge 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The "natural sciences" include biology. You are mistaken. Also, if you look up the definition of monism (from monistic) you will see it is materialism, and that pantheism is also. These all pertain to the material of the world, living and non-living. It most certainly includes biology. (Diligens 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Obviously the 'natural sciences' include biology. But unless I am much mistaken what Pius is saying here is essentially "While evolution has yet to be proved even in the realm of the physical sciences, some crazy kids are running around insisting that all things, material and immaterial, are in a state of flux or 'evolution' which is clealry in error." The question of when exactly biological evolution takes place has nothing to do with asserting monism or pantheism. One can easily assert that species continue to change as a result of the forces of natural selection without in any way asserting materialistic or pantheistic principles. Which is, of course, something that John Paul II reiterated when he addressed the topic of evolution. It is the philosophical glosses of evolution that some people have become infatuated with that are problematic for Catholic theology, not the biological fact of evolution itself.Brendanhodge 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a definition from a Catholic reference book for MONISM. A materialist system, according to which all things proceed from one only principle, namely, matter, by way of evolution and Pius XII said, "audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution". He is condemning continual, material evolution, which includes living things. (Diligens 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

It is not the definition of monism which I am unfamiliar with. It is whether biological evolution as a continuing process within the physical world necessitates or even suggests monism -- unless one assumes as necessary certain very basic philosophical errors of the sort that people like Richard Dawkins makes (which is in turn a form historicism, which Pius condemns in the following paragraph.) Thus, see this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia: Besides idealistic Monism there is Monism of the materialistic type, which proclaims that there is but one reality, namely, matter, whether matter be an agglomerate of atoms, a primitive, world-forming substance (see IONIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY), or the so-called cosmic nebula out of which the world evolved. This is essentially a rehashing of the atomistic Epicurian philosophy typified by Lucretius in De Rerum Natura. But the sense in which it is a philosophical and theological error is not simply because it posits a physical world which is always changing, but because it posits that the physical world is all there is.

Now certainly, we do see people who get caught up in the excitement of evolutionary theory and fall prey to monism (believing there is nothing to the world except the material world) or pantheism (believing that the universe itself is somehow alive and 'actively discovering itself' or some such). That is what Pius is warning us against. He is not saying that in some scientific/historic sense it is necessary to Catholic belief that there was a historical 'age of evolution' during which all evolution took place and that period is now definately over -- which seems to me to be what you are thinking he is saying. And it is that implication (which would in turn be an implication that Pius insisted that it was necessary to Catholicism to believe something which appears to be false) that I want to avoid.Brendanhodge 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To sum up, I think the original version provides a terse but balanced summary which accurately conveys Catholic teaching. I'm kind of hesitant to hedge it was extra verbage in an attempt to make it extra, extra clear that no, it really doesn't contradict Catholic teaching.

Brendanhodge 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Terseness in nice but not at the expense of truth and accuracy. (Diligens 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Humani Generis, promulgated in 1950, conceded that evolution might accurately describe the biological origins of human life, but at the same time criticized evolutionary biologists who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution...explains the origin of all things". The encyclical reiterated the Church's teaching that, whatever the physical origins of human beings, the human soul was directly created by God.

By saying that the "encyclical reiterated the Church's teaching that..." I think we have the point that this in no sense represented a change in Church teaching. The issue of single descent versus polygenism probably belongs in the Humani Generis article, which is itself seriously in need of work if you're interested. I've been hoping to tackle it soon, but time is always an issue.Brendanhodge 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am having a little trouble understanding your point in this entry. But here goes....I think it is necessary to keep the portion that explicitly says that there was no change and that it was merely a reiteration of Church teaching because in the opening line in that section it says that Pius XII "conceded", which gives the impression that this was a first. It needs to be balanced with the emphasis that there was not really a first in principle. (Diligens 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I take your point on "conceded". I think a better word could be found. Acknowledged? If you have a suggestion, please do toss it out. I definately don't want to present an incorrect implication, since obviously Catholic theology surrounding interpretation of the bible never ruled out evolution in the first place.Brendanhodge 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think conceded is good while being qualified just shortly thereafter. I think acknowledged is the same as conceded. Or possibly some phrase containing reiterated could replace it, such as "reiterated the Church's constant teaching" and then remove the later qualification. (Diligens 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I think rather than a generic statement of 'constant teaching', in that case, maybe what we need here is a reference to Catholic principles of biblical interpretation. Obviously, we didn't have a whole lot of discussion of how human souls might have been infused into already existant animal matter prior to the advent of evolution as a biological theory, because there wasn't a reason to discuss it. So there's no constant teaching in that sense. But there is, of course, Augustine's teaching about how true scientific insight can never be in conflict with the Bible, because they teach in different ways. Perhaps that would be a good thing to quote or reference.Brendanhodge 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church works based on what the authority teaches the Bible says. This is an issue of what the Church teaches, not what the Bible means, because Church teaching is authoritatively what is in conformity with the Bible. What is the constant teaching is the fact that - man came form the slime of the earth, started with one man and one woman whom God directly created the spiritual soul for. Pius XII used different words to support what was always taught. This is what should be in the article, and which is already there. (Diligens 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Okay. Based on all of this feedback, I've reposted a significantly modified version of my original:

Humani Generis, promulgated in 1950, acknowledged that evolution might accurately describe the biological origins of human life, but at the same time criticized those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution...explains the origin of all things". The encyclical reiterated the Church's teaching that, whatever the physical origins of human beings, the human soul was directly created by God. While Humani Generis was significant as the first occasion on which a pope explicitly addressed the topic of evolution at length, it did not represent a change in doctrine for the Catholic Church. As early as 1868, Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”

Following on Diligens' concerns, I pulled in an explicit statement of why the encyclical was significant but not any sort of change in doctrine, and pulled in a quote from the Venerable Newman to back that up. Hopefully that should be satisfactory to all.Brendanhodge 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article

Quotes I removed these as they have already been moved to wikiquote. That's what Wikiquote is for. If you can find a source from a reputatable source which summarizes the overall level of support/opposition of Pope Pius XII from the Jewish community, in Europe, or just overall, then lets add that instead. Such a lenghty list of primary source quotations is not encyclopedic.

Pictures I restored the image of Orsenigo. Being as he went on to become Pius's nuncio in Berlin, its clearly relevant. I've been trying to find a picture that would be more relevant, and if you have some that can be used, let us know. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Remove the passage about the letter to the Bishop of Cologne, calling the Nazis "false prophets with the pride of Lucifer.

Shouldn't we then discuss how the Nazi regime adopted themes from the New Testament. Nazis newspapers talked about how Jews betrayed Germany just as they betrayed Jesus, their preoccupation with money, (recall how Jesus overturn the moneylender's trays and Judas betrayal for pieces of silver), and the notion of a Christian government. Where did Pius differentiate the teachings of Jesus from the false teachings of Nazism or did he allow German Catholics to believe they could be both, Catholics and Nazis.

My concern is that accurately describing the horrors of Nazi Germany in a factual way seems to be precluded. You cannot tell the average person, enter a stranger's home and kill the mother, father, and children. German citizens had to gradually become comfortable with increasing levels of brutality. It began with deprivation of Jews civil rights and periodic beatings, evidenced by the Nuremburg laws which officially deprived Jews of citizenship. You then had Kristtlnacht where thousands of Jewish business and synagogues were burned and vandalized, with offical approval. Once Germans saw there was no protest, and indeed the economy got better and German prestige increased, they became comfortable with acts of increasing brutality. There was no real moral compass in the church or elsewhere to protest and when the Final Solution was proposed, the systamtic murder of Jews as a means to make Germany juden-free, that was adopted with virtually no opposition.

Specific historical acts like Nuremberg, Krystallnacht, the final solution, and Auschwitz should be included on this page. These things are not matters of opinion or comment, but they do place Pius's act or inactivity in proper context. (hopey5000)

There are anti-nazi statements from the Popes Pius XI + XII but the told little about the fate of the Jews. Whenever an ecclestical representative spoke out against anti-semitism, look closer. Often he only protests against the attempts of the nazis to create their own ideology that could become a rival for the catholic church, or against the fact that Jews of christian belief were not treated like Christians.

I would like to read the whole text of the letter to see if Pacelli condemned the nazism at all, or just a few aspects.

If a historian makes this claim, add it and cite it. No original research, please. If the quote really is out of context, then we can talk, but from what I understand, he did call the Nazis false prophets. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article, that the pope did intervene when it became clear that Germany would lose the war.Add what Tardini (closest advisor to the pope) wrote about "advantageous politics". In one of his documents he states, that the Jews will be on the side of the victorious after the war and that the Pope should help Jews to avoid the church from beeing blamed.

ADSS, 7th April 1943

This is already in the article, with an even more reputable claim, but in the Holocaust section where it makes more sense. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A public protest could have saved lives for many reasons.

First of all it would have been a warning to the European Jews, who often went patiently to the trains without any resistance.

The Nazis tried to keep the Holocaust secret, because they knew that it would horrify the German population. For example, the nazis stopped their euthanasia programme, when Bishop von Galen spoke out clearly against it.

Wait a minute. There was no secret. From 1933- 1940, the Germans saw Jews brutally beaten. We had Nuremberg laws, Kristtalnacht and widespread support for the Nazi regime. When the Nazis decided to go from brutal beating and imprisonment to murder, few protested. (hopey5000)

When the Nazis tried to arrest the Danish Jews, protests from many organisations, among them the Danisch bishops arose. Many Jews could be guided to neutral Sweden by Boat. More than 90% of them survived.

Danish bishops were heroic. However, in Poland over a million Jews died, in a country that was 80% Catholic. Many Catholics helped the Germans locate and murder Jews. The scope of death was so large because so many Polish Catholics hated the Jews and helped the Germans identify them and put them to death. Auschwitz was located in Poland. (hopey5000)

Protests from the Orthodox church forced the Bulgarian government to cease the deportations of Jews. From the Jewish population of 60.000 nearly 50.000 survived. Again we had heroic Orthodox Christians but note that thousands of Orthodox helped participate in the apprehensiion and murder of Jews. (hopey5000)

German soldiers were able to refuse to take part in mass executions without being punished. Also the german population was able to hid Jews in their apartments.

The notion of widespread German help for Jews is laughable. By and large, Germans embraced Nazism, saw no contradiction between it and Christian beliefs, and assisted Nazis in apprehending jews, taking their property, and killing them. (hopey5000)

In states like France, Slovakia and Croatia, the fascistic governments had close connections to the local bishops (for example, the president of Slovakia was a priest). In these countries, a papal protest could have been more effective than in the anti-Catholic Germany.

All of the above seems like original research. Wikipedia cannot make the claim "if Pius had spoke out, more jews would have been saved". "X reputable person says if he had spoken out, more jews would have been saved" might be a different story. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In Rome, many Jews were saved in monasteries and convents. As Susan Zuccotti points out, only a minority of the Roman clerics helped Jews. Jews only hid themselves in every seventh ecclestical institution. The others refused to let them in. Also Jews of Christian faith had a higher chance to find asylum than ordinary Jews. After the war some children were not given back to their parents (that is mentioned allready in the article). The pope did only little to support the Roman clergy. A papal order to all the monasteries to hide Jews does not exist.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsh43.htm

This does not seem to have anything to do with Pius other than what is already in the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When Germany attacked Russia, Msgr. Tardini hoped that both dictatorships would be triumphant over each other. In the early stage of the Blitzkrieg it was believed that Hitler would conquer the Soviet Union in few months. So Tardini wanted to help the Communists, but not that much that they could easily defend themselves against the Wehrmacht. He wanted to lengthen the war to defeat both Hitler and Stalin. In order to do this, he formulated a new interpretation of the 1937 Enzyclical "Divini Redemptoris" that originally forbid Catholics to help Communists. In it he stated that aid for the russian people did not mean to help the communism. Pius XII transmitted the new interpretation of the enzyclical to the American bishops. So the American government was able to send weapons and equipment to Russia.

http://i1.tinypic.com/v6hxyb.jpg

The current website that you have listed for this claim is unacceptable. If you had a better source, it might merit mention in the encyclical section. Pope Pius's anti-communism is well known, and I intent to expand upon that in a NPOV way when I find out more about it, but lets not delve through ridiculous statements on ridiculous websits. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely we need more on Pacelli's relation to communism. Cornwell of course reads great significance into P's experience of being taken captive by the revolutionaries of 1918. We could include a mention of that - though would be nice to have another source than Cornwell, or at least another viewpoint.Bengalski 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not translated the first part of the italian text, because noone doubts that context: there was a new interpretation of "Divini Redemptoris" that allowed military aid to soviet union. Here is the translation of the more interessting part of the text: "They [the communists] avertet the assault, to attack; their plans to spread the communism were well-known; their concentration of armed forces at the german and romanian border idicated further attacks. Stalin was wating for the proper moment, like he waited in the cases of Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Bessarabia. Stalin is not a Pacifist, forced to wage a war, he is a warmonger, whose criminal plans, collided with the plans of another more keen one.

One will conlude: "To help the russian people to win the war, does not mean to support the communist doctrine and militant atheism." This is true theoretical, but practically this distinction can never be approved. If the russians will win the war, it means that Stalin will win the war. Nobody will be able to overthrow him. And Stalin is the comunism. The triumphant communism will be the only one ruling the European continent.

Who could resist him? The slavic people? Sure not. The germanic people? But as beaten people, the would lay on the ground[be weak] The romanic people? They would be exhausted at least.

I myself hope that the war, being waged in Russia will lead to the communism beeing beaten and destroyed and to a nazism being weakend and standing close to total defeat. Hence i think that it would not be opportune to give a clear answer to such a delicate question, which will lead to consequences in sending miltary aid to Russia.

If i would be standing next to Roosevelt and Churchill i would give them the following advice:

Help the russians - but with special concern. This concern would be to help them just that much, that the Russians can defend themselves against the Germans, as it is possible, but not that much to prevent the defeat of the Russians, which would be the desireable defeaf of communism.

To make things clear: I hope that Roosevelt is also following this idea. In fact he says in his letter to the pope, that there is a dangerous dictatorship in Russia. When it is, like it seems, Roosevelts plan to abolish dictatorships, he has to remove Stalin for this reason."

In the whole document Tardini expresses no compassion for the civilian population of the Soviet Union. Savidan said that this document leave much room for interpretation and that it had no effect on World War II. He thinks that it would be better to not include this plan.

Anyway: about the pope and communism:

In his christmas message, Pius did not mention that word jew, but the word "Marxism" (Communism) and condemned it clearly.

After the war Pius protested against the serbian massacres against the Croatians. He also protested against the Trial of Cardinal Stepinac and Cardinal Mindszenty 1946 and 1949.

He protested against the Soviet Intervention in Budapest 1956.

All this condemnations are much more clear than the Christmas message. --EPR 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

--EPR 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1.Okay 2.My claim is a primary source. 3.Since no on has claimed, that Pius XII gave the order to shelter Jews in monasteries, theres no need to add this. 4.Who defines wheter a person is reputable or not? Anyway, many scientists claim that the public protest of the Danish and Bulgarian bishops was right. For Example Goldhagen. 5.This ist not a ridiculous website, this is a primary source. And it has nothing to do with the encyclical section because ist not a encyclical, but an internal document.

By the way, do you have any IM programms? --EPR 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to IM me at c6o6s6m6o on AIM. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

@ advantageous politics: one of the arguments that the American and British diplomats used to convince Pius XII to speak out against hte holocaust, was that the Alliies would surely win the war.

--EPR 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic article

The present article is highly biased, created to support a newly created Hetze (witch hunt) against Pius XII, who in fact was praised by Golda Meir, Albert Einstein etc. etc. The facts are, that Pope Pius XII ordered the Vatican clergy to hide Jews. (Do the 6,000,000 Jews who were killed, many starved, 120 pounds or less, the close to one million children, and their families, who were killed by Catholic, Lutheran, and other Christians believe Pope Pius did a nice job).

I disagree (hopey5000) In Catholic Poland, over 1 million Jews were murdered. In Germany itself with a substantial population, Jews were murdered in the country itself, after systematic beating and elimination of civil rights, and the Nazis then went on to dessimate Jewish places of worship and kill Jewish men, women, and children throughout Europe. How could this happen. Are you suggesting that German and Polish Catholics did not participate in the holocaust. There is little support for that position; what was the holocaust under Lutherans, in Poland where the scope of death was the highest, the percentage of Catholics was likewise high exceeding 80%. German and Polish Catholics by and large went to church, took communion, did not divorce, did not have abortions, but did apprehend, and help murder Jews and other disfavored persons. They perceived no inherent contradiction between the dictates of their religion and their duties to the state. In that context, it is appropriate to castigate Pius as the head of the church and the person who promulgated and executed policy. (hopey5000)

This is not an attack on the Catholic Church. During the last 25 years, the Church has done more to alleviate starvation in Africa then other religions in including Judaism. Catholic churchs have helped feed the hungry and provided shelter for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Its charity can be contrasted with the inaction of many. However, it failed during the rise and prevalence of Nazism and Pius can be blamed.

I see the piece as biased towards Pius. Factual events are deliberately omitted. Nothing is said about the Nuremburg laws or Crystallnacht which showed the progression of Nazism. Can't we discuss the horrors of the concentration camps, the starving of men and women, and the creating or death camps, showing the absence of morality. Why can't we talk about the fact that 1 million children died children like Ann Frank. Can't we talk about people like Joseph Mangele who liked to torture one twin and compare the impact upon both, or immerse Jews in freezing water to see how the body responded. Aren't these acts a product of a lack of moral compass directly attributable to the failure of moral leaders like Pius to speak out. If you say others should share blame I agree, but to attempt to exculpate him seems ridiculous. (hopey 5000).

When Israel was being established, these battle-worn Jews, many of whom saw family members die, were eager for support, and it is not surprising they spoke well of anyone who might give it. The attempt to whitewash Pius inaction by cobbling together various groups of Jewish spokesman seems ill-conceived, like getting groups of slaves to speak about the fairness of that institution.

At best you can say there were two Pius', the first who allowed Nazism to grow and prosper, and the second, who acted cautiously in helping Jews, where they were within his control such as Italy, and where it would not create conflict with the Nazi regime.

Explain your position so we can understand here.

There are pictures of Pius XII visiting the Jewish refugees. The article does not mention Israel Zolli's (rome's Rabbi) conversion to Catholicism in 1945, adopting the baptismal name of Eugenio. There are merely the negative aspects. This is not encyclopedical, it's in fact childish. Mit Brennender Sorge clearly condemned racism (in all forms, including racism against Gipseys, which is often forgotten by modern scholars). Where are the archived plans of the Nazis to assissinate Pius XII as he was to oppositional? Where is the mentioning of the historical 1,200,000 saved Jews by direct Vatican orders? Should we write an article about the Jewish World Congress of New York too then, which did nothing to help European Jews, while Pius XII was the "greatest and only voice raised in the age of tyranny", just to quote Zionist Golda Meir in praise of Pius XII. She and Pacelli did not even agree in most points (as to Zionism), but she at least was honest, while this article is not. I inserted the discussion lable because of that! Improve the article. 82.72.148.85 08:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article is balanced, but am open to some of the things that you want to add assuming that reputable sources can be found. The praise by Golda Meir is noted in the article, and the quote is on Wikiquote. Israel Zolli's conversion to Catholocism doesn't seem that relevant to an article about Pope Pius. We would need a source not only for his conversion, but for whatever reason you think it is relevant. Mit Brenneder Sorge is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, not Pope Pius XII, and thus is disucssed in detail in that article and not this one. It is popularly believed that Pacelli wrote part or all of it, and that is noted. The only source that I was able to find for the Nazi plans to assassinate Pius are from blogs and random websites. It was removed from the article as unsourced, but could be reinserted were a reputable source found (read a book!). The article includes an estimate of the number of Jews saved by the church although the number is generally agreed to be much less, and not all of them were by Vatican orders. I don't know anything about the JWC, but I would advise you to follow WP:POINT. The silence of the Pope is more notable than the silence of random organizations, even absent the fact that much more is written about Pius.

As a metapoint, I want to make clear that this article is not and should not be a judgement or debate about Pius during the war but rather an article about what he did and about the historical controversy. The difference between hashing out a debate and writing about a debate is a hard line to walk, but I think we do that now, at the cost of not being able to include information that we can't WP:CITE. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the discussion label with a peer review request. The discussion tag wasn't really justified without specific and actionable instances of factual errors and bias. Your problem seems to be that a lot of facts which you consider positive aren't included, which can just be rememdied by finding sources and adding them. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence

Due to the nature of this topic, for obvious reasons, we cannot accept unsourced criticisms or defenses of Pius. We need to apply the WP:NOR policy here strictly. I removed the following, please do not reinsert without a source: savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Others, among them Louis Finkelstein, also argue that Cornwell's fierce criticism against Pius XII was based primarily on Cornwell's personal aversion from Pius XII's theological and liturgical conservatism, where as Cornwell himself promotes radical changes in the Catholic Church.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem --EPR 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence from the WWII: relationship with Nazi Germany section:

Although Pius certainly was not "silent" on the question of the Holocaust, Madigan has criticized him for never saying "anything so emphatic, unequivocal or explicit" on behalf of the European Jewry, perhaps for fear of the Vatican's own survival.

The first clause about his not being silent is highly disputed. The second has a source but how important is it given there are whole sections dedicated to this issue below? Is Madigan particularly worthy of inclusion - or should we put his view in wikiquote with all the others?Bengalski 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also cut this which is from Pius XI not Pius XII:

On September 6 1938, in speech to a pilgrims which was reported by the international press Pius XI said: "Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites."

Good Article

I don't think inserting a "by" into the article really counts as signifigantly contributing, so i've reviewed this article. It looks like its pretty nice, I mean it seems to fit every criteria, (See the criteria at WP:GA and look to the right) though I notice there's a few contentious sounding edit summaries in the history. If you can keep anything like edit wars or something out, this should be a good candidate for an FA nom i'd think. Homestarmy 00:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

N/A information removed

I removed this quote which has nothing to do with Pope Pius. Perhaps it would be useful if there is ever an article about the Catholic Church during WWII:savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels wrote on 26 March 1942 in his diary

"It's a dirty, low thing to do for the Catholic Church to continue its subversive activity in every way possible and now even to extend its propaganda to Protestant children evacuated from the regions threatened by air raids. Next to the Jews these politico-divines are about the most loathsome riffraff that we are still sheltering in the Reich. The time will come after the war for an over-all solution of this problem."

Also, as to the conspiracy to kidnap Pius, no reputable historian discusses this example. Dalin is quoting someone here who simultaneously claims to have snuck into the Vatican to warn Pius and to have personally talked Hitler out of it. This is one of the low points of Dalin's book and hopefully it won't be a stain on the credibilty of this article the same way it is on Dalin's book:

Hitler discussed in a meeting on 26 July 1943 the possibility of invading the Vatican and imprisoning the pope in Upper Saxony. In 1943, Adolf Hitler threatened to level the Vatican with "blood and fire." One of the more recent confirmations of this plot was reported in the Italian newspaper Avvenire which suggested that Hitler ordered SS General Karl Wolff, a senior occupation officer in Italy, to kidnap Pius XII.

According to the account, Wolff put on civilian clothes and visited the Vatican to warn Pius XII. Rabbi David G. Dalin quotes Wolff's testimony that he had orders to "occupy as soon as possible the Vatican and Vatican City, secure the archives and the art treasures, which have a unique value, and transfer the pope, together with the Curia, for their protection, so that they cannot fall into the hands of the Allies and exert a political influence", but he claims that Wolff had managed to talk Hitler out of the plan by December 1943 . Adolf Hitler said "[Pius XII] is the only human being who has always contradicted me and who has never obeyed me.

Great Source

I just stumbled across a source which is probably the most credible and balanced on Pope Pius during the Holocaust. It's a collection of essays editied by Carol and Rittner which tries to get away from the intentionally provokative attacks and defenses of Pius from Cornwell/Dalin respectively. As I read it, I'll try to update the text accordingly. It's also, I believe, the most recent book. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard very good things about the book edited by Carol Rittner & John Roth, which I assume is what you mean. Also good from what I hear is Blet & Johnson's book which looks at the Vatican archives from the period. I believe Patrick Gallo also very recently (published 2005) edited a book which (despite a somewhat combative title) I've heard is very balanced.

It is a difficult topic to cover fairly, even at some length, and I think the article could still use some additonal balance and polish, though I haven't read all the sources available on the topic. Brendanhodge 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What I've found in general is that some of the more combative titles usually give correct facts but only part of the story. As you can see in the text where several different sources are cited in the same sentence, combining the facts from several sources while cutting the "interpretations" offered by each of the individual ones often produces a more balanced result. Some works draw on vague examples, which—upon consulting other sources—are from entirely different time periods, for example. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, reconciling sources seems like a major issue. For instance, we have the "In the spring of 1940, Pius declined to act when Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked Cardinal Secretary of State Luigi Maglione to intercede on behalf of Spanish and Lithuanian Jews facing deporation to Germany.[33]" with a citation of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, while in an article built around quotes from the contemporary NY Times [2] I find: As the situation worsened, the pope received various petitions from Jewish rabbis and groups asking his help. One came from Rabbi Herzog, the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, to which to pope replied promising “to do all in his personal power to aid persecuted Jews in Europe.” (N.Y. Times, February 7, 1943, p. 29, 4) Now, clearly, there could be two separate requests. And additionally, it's unclear if 'declined to act' and 'promising to do all in his personal power' were actually any different, since the author of the first source may have felt that whatever Pius actually did (if anything) in regards to the specific request didn't actually constitute 'anything'.Brendanhodge 15:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you send me a link to the full text of the articlce you think contradicts the JVL? I'll see if Herzog appears in any of the indexes of any of the books I have on this as well. If we can't resolve this soon, it may be better just to remove it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, the full text of the article is at: [3] If you do a "find on this page" search for "Herzog" it should be the first reference you find. The article is by Stephen M. DiGiovanni and is entitled "PIUS XII AND THE JEWS: The War Years, as reported by the New York Times" and deals primarily with how the NY Times treated the topic during the way.

I don't have electronic access to a database of NY Times articles from the time, but given that the WP is usually based on secondary rather than primary sources anyway, I figured DiGiobanni's article was probably a sufficient source.Brendanhodge 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the publications of Isaac Herzog, then you might know, what Pius did for the Jews. Read his adresses of praise an thanks after the war, adressed to noone else than Pius. (Those sources can be found all over the internet). What is wrong about taking those witnesses as an historic source? --UAltmann 13:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read Sanchez's book (which by the way is pro-Pius and published by a Catholic University Press) he has an excellent chapter reviewing the quality of all major primary and secondary sources published up to 2000. You will see that many of the so-called "primary sources" were invented by secondary authors or have not been made public (i.e. only one author has been able to read it, so we just have to take their word for it). I don't know exactly what you are referring to, but a lot of what is on the internet falls into this category. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pope protest vs. World Jewish protest

I just did a rv because the person added too much without discussing it first. It was a good attempt to try to put things in historical perspective, however, ignorance of historical facts can mean the difference between fact and fiction. Unfortunately the fiction tends to proliferate faster that the facts.

A pope is not the king, keeper or father of the world. He is head of the Catholic Church. His concern is primarily those under his jurisdiction, which are baptized Catholics. YET, if you look at the facts of the 1930's the Catholic Church did more to protest Hitler than world Jewry did. Take note of this very significant fact the Jews in the United States were 6 million strong. They were in the wealthiest country and had some of the most influential positions in politics, Hollywood, finance, and news media. Does anyone criticize the Jews because they failed to protest Hitler's persecution of the Catholics in Germany?

Absolutely, Jews themselves criticize the absence of protest, as they passively went to the gas chambers, naively believing that someone would help. Today Jews say, "Never Again, meaning they will not sit passively while others kill. (hopey 5000)

More importantly, nobody even criticizes them for not protesting the persecution of Jews, which the lack of new media and Hollywood attention clearly shows. Take a look at how the pope takes care of his own - while the whole world was relatively silent, the concordat with the German Reich and the Vatican shows clearly the concern for injustice. Ask yourself, "Did I ever read that concordat?". If you didn't you will accept the lie that the concordat was a cozying up with the Germans. So tell me an agrement between the Church and Nazi Germany which permitted Hitler to ascend power was actually a protest. (hopey5000)

Read it and see that the entire concordat that Cardinal Pacelli helped author was from start to finish a bold list of demands for Catholics in Germany, and these demands all imply the Vatican's fear and distrust for the Germans in their treatment of Catholics. Sure enough, by about 1936, the Hitler and the Germans violated these demands that they previously agreed to, and the Catholic Church was forced to write Mit brennender Sorge. The Catholic Church was first in officially and publicly condemning and exposing their rottenness. Take note that in 1936 the whole world was honoring Hitler with having the world Olympics in Berlin, while the Church was penning a condemnation. The Jews in the US were making money from the Olympics. Why was not predominantly Jewish Hollywood using their films to protest Hitler or complain of injustice? Where were the Jewish financiers in the US with their money to fund the projects? Where were the predominantly Jewish news sources to use their own public media against Hitler? It is virtually absent. Pope Pius XII on the other hand, even though his job is taking care of Catholics, high Jewish authorities after WW2 acknowledge that he did more than anyone else to help Jews in Germany. Most likely these quotes on Wikipedia, but they are easily found on the Net. - Diligens 13:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am certain that you are making these suggestions in good faith. But let me just say that both you and the anon that you revrted are approaching this article from a non-encyclopedic method, which is resulting in most of the misunderstandings.

I am not approaching this article from a non-encyclopedic method because I added nothing to the article. I merely know that what someone else added is not true, so I excised it and gave my reasons why. This is perfectly acceptable in creating a more perfect article. I have never read the whole article itself, but if it criticizes Pius XII in any way for failing to protect Jews, it is a faulty article and needs editing, for the reasons which I have already given. You cannot fault a fireman for not reprimanding a person who is breaking the speed limit. You criticize a man when he fails to do his duty, and it is not the duty of the pope in Rome to put a heavier focus outside of the members of the Catholic Church. Help outside of that is above and beyond the call of duty. And Pius XII did in fact go well above and beyond the call of duty in that regard. - Diligens 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Context can be a beautiful thing. For exaple, saying that Hans Bethe was dismissed from his post in Germany in 1933 without noting that his mother was Jewish demonstrates the need for context. However, over the past few months, I have had to remove "context" from both those who have sought to vilify and glorify Pius. That anon who keeps adding general information on WWII and the Holocaust is only one example (and not the worst, because he is most often reverted by RC patrollers who can easily recognize his contributions as rubbish). Pointing out that "the Jews were making money from the Olympics", for example, as Diligens has suggested above is not the type of information that needs to be in this article. Some types of context will have to be found in other articles at the readers discretion. Some types of "context" are really just original research is disguise.

Also, as to that POV-pushing collection of quotations: it is lucky to be on Wikiquote and, in my opinion, to continue to add it to this article constitutes vandalism. I find it comical that some POV-pushers think that the best way to to represent their POV in this article is by adding a lengthy list of endorsements from people who happen to be Jews, most of which are thouroughly unnotable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph erroniously placed in the WWII section

In March 1935, Pacelli wrote an open letter to the Bishop of Cologne, calling the Nazis "false prophets with the pride of Lucifer." On April 28 1935 before 250,000 pilgrims at Lourdes, France, said of the Nazis, "It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult" and called the Nazis "miserable plagiarizers who dress up ancient error in new tinsel." In 1938, Pacelli had spoken at the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris against the Nazi "pagan cult of race," as well as the "vile criminal actions" and "iniquitous violence" of the Nazi leadership.

Note that none of these quotes are sourced in the article. I don't know the context of the first sentence. Is he talking about the Reichskokordat? Why is this a notable letter? It is not at all clear in the second quote that he is actually talking about the Nazis. The only sources who claim that this is talking about the Nazis are POV-pushing websites. I have yet to see this cited in a book. The only problem with the third quote is that it predates both the Holocaust and WWII, so the given context of him speaking out against the Nazis violence is obviously incorrect. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote(s) should be referenced. However, it is not that accurate that is "not at all clear in the second quote that he is actually talking about the Nazis. The only sources who claim that this is talking about the Nazis are POV-pushing websites" - "superstition of a race and blood cult" really fits the Nazi ideology perfectly, especially when coming from the former Nuncio to Germany. And you don't need to have a war or shoa to call talk like that about the Nazis. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were a reference, I would gladly track down the original myself. However, I was merely commenting that the quote as far as we currently know doesn't really have any context. It doesn't pass the "not" test. It could just as easily be talking about the communists or the allies. Do to the nature of scholarship surrounding Pius, I think its important to say who interpretted that quote as referring to the Nazis and as well as the very related question of notability (if he called them explicitly by name in that speech, I'll stand corrected, but the lack of references means I'd prefer to err on the side of caution). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, having a reference is the first and primary step on our way. The rest was merely a comment valid if we had a reference. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read Dalin's book I can tell you with certainty this is where they originate. The removed text is almost an exact copy of his text. In both cases his end notes cite an article by himself in which there is no further citation information for these quotes that I could find.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the Lourdes quote, I was able to find a New York times article about it (Nazis Warned at Lourdes. New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 29, 1935; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003), pg. 8) so I think it is worthy of inclusion. Despite the title, as the article notes, he did not mention the object of his criticism by name ("Enemies of the cross, whatever their name") and the article in fact interpret's his remarks to refer to both Nazism and Communism ("An attack on both Hitlerism and communism was evident," say the article). Directly after the quote above, he says "the church does not consent to form a compact with them at any price." Being as this is two years after the signing of the Reichskokordat, I think this helps the anti-communist interpretation a lot. In any case, when this is reinserted, it should be in the "Cardinal and Cardinal Secretary of State" section. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sedia gestatoria

Image:GestatorialChair1.jpg appears both in this article and Sedia gestatoria. The subtitle in Pius XII reads Pope Pius XII, wearing the traditional 1877 Papal Tiara, is carried through St. Peter's Basilica on a sedia gestatoria circa *1955*.. The same picture in the other article is subtitled 'Pope Pius XII, in coronation robes and wearing the 1877 Papal Tiara, is carried through St. Peter's Basilica on a sedia gestatoria during his coronation in *1939*. Tintin (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the date in the caption to be on the safe side. If satisfactory source data cannot be found in the long term it should be removed entirely. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

intro

User: Diligens removed "His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust, remains the subject of continued historical controversy." from the intro on the grounds that it is POV becuase "he was fine until after his death." In truth, I thought a lot about what would be the most neutral POV wording for this sentence, and I am curious if anyone can find a better way to say this.

I refuse to believe that simply referincing the fact that there is "continuing historical controversy" is POV. To not acknowledge this hurts the credibility of the article. Most articles about popes are one paragraph long. The only reason that there is so much information about him, not just on Wikipedia, but from historians is because of this controversy.

I also find the specific objection ironic as the current wording was chosen specifically to avoid the problem that Diligens is citing. "Continued" just means that it is going on today, which I don't think that anyone is denying. Every single book on Pius from 1990 on acknowledges this fact, whether or not they are pro- or anti- Pius (or neither). I also thought about adding a second sentence trying to sum up the the salient points of the debate, but decided that this would be impossible. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has a lot of problems and I will comment on them in time. However, the sentence disputed in the intro is not one of them. The controversy may be injustified and slandering but it is a "continued historical controversy". To clarify we could included that it started only after his death but for the intro I don't think that that is necessary. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is that the words "continued historical" appears to make him controversial ever since he was in office as Pope. And this is not so. He was well-liked. At the very least it should be worded that there was no controversy until well after his death by one person who wrote a book that has been disproven on several significant points, long ago refuted. Either something can be refuted, or it can't. These people who ignore proof and try to MAKE it a "continued historical controversy" are the real problem. It is always fishy when people wait for someone to die in order to create an enlightment of a controversy that didn't exist while the person was alive. The statement is also ambiguous. If it is insisted that there is a controversy, it should be stated precisely and concisely what that would be. Saying his "leadership" is basically defamation. A pope is the leader of baptized Catholics. That is not a controversy. Incidentals of world events are not under his charge, except by a call in charity above and beyond his call of duty. Even if one were to say he failed in charity, that has nothing to do with his "leadership". What do you mean, he tells people how to live their lives as good Catholics. You can say there is no inconsistency with being a Catholic and imprisoning and murdering people. That is at least what many Catholics perceived because they would not have committed the horrible acts that they did if they perceived them to violate church doctrine. As you yourself point out, he decided that world and political events such as Nazism were outside his control and perview other than to sign an agreement with the Nazi regime, issue inoffensive vague statements that did not change behavior and help Italian Jews. Six millions Jews along with others could not have been killed had he strongly protested. (hopey5000)

(Diligens 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

When both Str1977 and myself disagree with you, you are most likely wrong. It appears now that you object to the term controversy because you think that your side of the controversy is the only correct one. By the way, of course the historical controversy didn't start until after his death. By definition, it takes time for the present to become "history". However, to say that no one criticized the Pope during his lifetime is demonstrably incorrect, although obviously those criticisms did not translate into larger public opinion, and arguably still have not (if anyone today has even heard of Pope Pius XII). Also, "leadership" once again is the best way to say this because that is precisely the nature of the controversy (which, by the way, includes both praise and criticism). I would love a second, more specific sentence, but it will take time to craft such a sentence on the talk page, if a NPOV wording can ever be agreed upon. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you addressed the points I was making. You just reiterated disagreement and erroneously make a claim that just because there are 2 disagreements to my one, that I am "most likely wrong". That means nothing. Wikipedia guidelines state that simple majority does not give consensus. Please put aside an attempt at consensus and address the points. Controversy (and "historical") by definition is a dispute that is lengthy and public. You can find no proof that his leadership of the Church was controversially portrayed while he was living as public (such as newspapers) or lengthy (back and forth). Existence of criticisim is not equivalent to what is entailed by public controversy. There is no need for an article on a pope to even mention it. Just simply have subsections on issues where the need arises. Either there is documented evidence for a public and lengthy controversy, or there isn't. Where and when did this start? A public controversy is something such as McCarthy or Bill Clinton issues. And when they last for a generation they can become "continued historical". I see no evidence of this in regard to Pius XII. Funny thing you should say, "if anyone today has even heard of Pope Pius XII", because that tends to show that it truly has not continued, if there ever was one. (Diligens 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Where is the discussion? Why rv this without discussion? The recent rv edit summary says, "having a complete intro is important--Dilgens has no alternate proposal on the talk, and for now this is the most NPOV wording we have". I did give an alternative, and didn't get a response. Removal is what is called omission. The principle of omission is that "omission is not necessarily denial". Removing it is always NPOV. What is now in the article is not NPOV. I will wait for a response. (Diligens 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

The current wording makes no claim that there was controversy while he was living, so I don't see what you are talking about. Suggest an alternative wording and explain why your wording is more NPOV. Removal is very often not NPOV. The intro cannot go without mention of WWII and the Holocaust entirely, which are clearly the most prescient events in his life. Every single book listed in the additional reading section would easily support the claim that this is the subject of continued historical controversy. The current wording is mild compared to what it could say; there is plenty of disagreement about historians on this issue; I find your "definition" of "controversy" comical. I have no reason to believe that you know what you are talking about at all. The fact that there have been a storm of best seller books both condemning and defending Pius is evidence enough. Removal all reference to the historical controversy from the intro is not a solution that I believe any other experienced editor would endorse. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that if one wanted to clarify when the controversy came up, one could say "Since the early 1960s there has been growing controversy over whether Pope Pius XII took a sufficient moral stand against Nazism and The Holocaust, with critics charging that his actions or ommissions represent a moral scandal."

However, I hardly think this is the most needed change in regards to treating Pius fairly, so it doesn't seem worth making too much fuss about. Brendanhodge 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 'since the early sixties' is correct. Eg. Pius adovocate Rychlak himself puts the blame for starting the attacks on Pius on 'Italian leftists' after the war. From memory (if this becomes an issue I will dig out references - but like other editors I'm not sure this is the important issue) it began with the Italian left-wing press in the 40s criticising Pius' involvement with Nazis like Bishop Hudal, and bringing attention to the vatican's involvement in Nazi-smuggling. Also as User:EffK rightly pointed out, Avro Manhattan was publishing against Pius in the 40s (nb - long before Jack Chick started republishing his stuff). Also when we talk about Pius critique in the 60s we need to look at the role of the Eichmann trial in bringing the church's ratline activity to light.Bengalski 23:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording for disputed sentence.

I have followed this discussion without comment. I understand the view about Pius XII. Let me propose a new wording so we don't grow beards waiting for one.

His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust, remains the subject of continued historical controversy.

changes to:

His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust, has undergone scrutiny in the years after his death.

Controversy I think, carries a negative connotation in certain peoples eyes. I do not think either side can object to scrutiny. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with 'controversy'. Saying there is a controversy doesn't make a judgement about who is in the right. I don't think anyone except Dilligens has had a problem with the phrase, and his/her concern seems more to do with when the controversy began - i.e. the continued bit. On that, I commented above.Bengalski 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to find a third way. Do you object to changing this wording? I have a minor issue with the way it is portrayed using controversy. I don't think of that first thing we remember about his reign, I recall hearing in my younger years about his early condemnations of the Nazi regeme, especially among the Catholic Germans in my small boyhood community. There are also a number of writings that talk about Pope Pius' active efforts to rescue Jews despite the risks to the Church as a whole. I think scrutiny was more NPoV. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to this new wording which is obviously vaguer and not descriptive of the actual contoversy. This is the definition of a historical controversy. There is a disagreement among scholars about the facts as well as interpretations surrounding a historical figure. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well lets try:

His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust, became controversial in the years after his death.

Like I said, I have a minor issue with the verbage. I am reaching out to find verbage that prevents an individual (not named) from starting a flame war here. Perhaps you all have a tweak that indicates this started some years after his death? Dominick ^(TALK) 19:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it did start only after his death - see my comment in section immediately above.Bengalski 19:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that it only started after his death either. An I don't agree with "became controverial" as opposed to the "subject of historical controversy either. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this controversy before his death? Sorry about became controverial, my first language is C. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see in many places that are currently cited in the article, Pius received several criticisms during his lifetime. One area that I have not yet found citations for but is probably the most notable is from the Polish clergy during the war. He also recieved much praise during his lifetime. Both directed at his leadership. Hence controversy. Another area which has not yet been covered is the criticism he recieved after the war from US military officers because he wanted forgiveness for war crimes. Its really hard to make the case that nobody said anything non-positive about Pius until the publishing of The Deputy as most apologist blogs attempt to say. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That was not the question. It seems this started in 1963. I wanted to see articles with those criticisms published before 1963. I don't know, thats why I asked. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There were certainly people who argued he should have acted other than he did prior to his death, and prior to the publication of The Deputy, it certainly seems like there is a different tenor to the accusions found in The Deputy of Hitler's Pope than are found in mainstream documents of the 40s and 50s. Whatever else one may think of it, Hitler's Pope is a much more mainstream work than 40s and 50s communist party propaganda.

If you want to allow for some controversy earlier, I suppose one could say: His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust became increasingly controversial in the years after his death. But if we're to have a major revision fight, I think there are much more important things to do it over.Brendanhodge 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that this discussion illustrates some of the problems with dealing with the issue of when the criticism/controversy started. I think that we can make the facts adequately clear in the text; however, this is not a question which I think we can deal with fiarly in the intro while keeping everything simple and concise. The current wording remains agnostic on the before/after death question. Do to the difficulty of proving a negative, I don't think that we should ever imply that there was no criticism of Pius during any time period of his papacy. As to the question of whether it has increased, it's hard to imagine how we could quantify an increase or decrease without succumbing to the traps of original research. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw the sentence about a "continued historical controversy", the phrase, I thought, immediately brings to mind that there has been a controversy ever since the days that the controversy is concerned with, namely, the years he was alive during WWII. I think the words are inaccurate and apt to mislead readers. I think that the adjective "historical" should be removed because it was not a controversy since the historical days of WWII. It would be accurate to say "continued controversy some time after his death, especially as books began to be authored about the subject". Something like that.

Another fault with this is understanding the terms "criticism" and "controversy". Savidan mentioned that my idea of controversy was "comical", however, my idea of it came from a dictionary, in which it states that it is, "A dispute, especially a lengthy and public one, between sides holding opposing views." The definition of "criticism" does not mention controversy or dispute. It is merely a one-sides analysis. To say "continued historical" in reference to a controversy, it must be lengthy and public, with opposing sides actively refuting each other. If that were the case evev in the 50's Archbishop Sheen's TV program would not have rivaled Milton Berl.

In regard to Pius XII a controversy really did not exist until the 1970's. There must be some proof to even say it was existing in the 60's since a book is not a controversy, but a criticism. Did John XXIII or Paul VI make any public statements? Where is some documentation here from Newspapers or Magazines? Savidan also has an erroneous application of proving a negative. That is like saying that I cannot prove that Savidan didn't committed murder, therefore, it is hypothetically possible he did, therefore it allows me to publicly ruin his reputation by suggesting that the negative may have occurred. No. On Wikipedia, negatives are considered false if there is not proof. Innuendoes are based on hypotheticals and they amount to libel.

Also, the wording questions his "leadership of the Catholic Church" as being controversial. Giving material aid to Jews, or protesting social events, has nothing to do with his leadership of the Catholic Church. His attainment of non-Catholic world facts is NOT an official aspect of his leadership. What he feels like doing as an individual, with acts of Charity, are no more officially representative of Catholic leadership than my giving money to the poor or protesting abortion. The leadership of a pope is in reference to those whom he has the authority to lead, meaning Catholics. Has someone criticized the way he has lead Catholics?

Lastly, the ACT of removal might not be NPOV as far as internal motive of the editor. But that does not concern us. The question is, does the RESULT of an edit, as read by a new reader, reveal an idea against NPOV? In this case it certainly does not. Try removing it, and you will see its absence only promotes NPOV. (Diligens 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Please do not conflate your initial and inaccurate impression with inaccuracy of the text. The current wording says nothing about when it began, and probably rightly so. It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand your increasingly obscure and awkwardly one-sided suggested wordings. The continued publication of best selling books which actively refute each other can only be described as public, even by your ridiculously contrived definition. I think that all of the literature I have read on Pius would prove you wrong on the "leadership" question as well. When people praise Pius for saving jews, they aren't praising him for personally transporting them out of Europe, but for leading the church to do so. When they criticize him for not speaking out, it's not a personal condemnation but a criticism on not using his position as the leader of the Catholic church to speak out. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I say many things, but I hardly get a response to them all. Maybe I should focus, because there are several problems with the disputed sentence. Hard to know where to start. How can you call definitions from a dictionary "ridiculously contrived" on my part? That is ridiculous itself. Words have meaning, and the meaning of words is not limited to denotation. Connotation of words is a very real literary element.

All you can say is "I think" in regard to his "leadership". That is not good enough. The full portion says "leadership of the Catholic Church". His authority in regard to bishops, priests, layman, listening to him, loving him, following him and obeying him has not been a controversy. It is a known statistical fact that conversions to the Catholic Church by the time of his death were at an all-time high in the Catholic Church, which started to plummet when John XXIII was elected. You are apparently confusing leadership with reputation. If his reputation suffered in 1963 because lies came out in a book, that has nothing to do with his actual leadership of those under his jurisdiction during WWII. If his leadership was poor, the first to know about it would be Catholics. That is non-existent. (Diligens 10:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

Personally I'd see no problem with cutting the words 'continued historical'. They don't really add much to the meaning of it. That would leave us just with:

His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust remains the subject of controversy.

That implies nothing about when it began: only that it began at some point in the past (whether 40s or 60s or 70s), and that it continues today. If we want to go into the details of when the controversy began, that can come later down the page.

On that question, User:EffK has provided some sources on his talk page - eg. one of them cites L'Osservatore Romano, Feb. 12, 1946 as contesting charges against Pius XII policy re. the Nazis. I pull out this one because it fits aptly Diligens' definition above that a 'controversy' needs to have sides with opposing views disputing. If the Vatican felt criticism at the time was serious enough to contest it in L'Osservatore Romano then that certainly fits this definition.

As for leadership, Diligens you are using the term in a very restricted and unusual sense. I don't know which dictionary you are using, but eg. from the first one I found online - Mirriam Webster: "1 : the office or position of a leader; 2 : capacity to lead; 3 : the act or an instance of leading" - thus to criticise someone's 'leadership' is just to criticise the fact that they are the leader, their capacity for the job, or their actions as leader. Nothing says this criticism needs to come from the point of view of their own followers. E.g., Pius was amongst many non-Russians who opposed Stalin's leadership of Russia. Or eg. would you say the only people who were in a position to object to Hitler's leadership of Germany were the Germans? The whole world can bemoan the fact that Hitler became leader of Germany and pursued the policies he did.Bengalski 22:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with Bengalski's solution as a compromise. I was merely trying to emphasize initially that this is somewhat of a "current event" as historical controversies go, but I can see why there are non-historians who participate as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote from Sanchez's (clearly pro-Pius) book: "has become so controverserial that it has become one of the great historical and moral problems of our time (page vii), "the most recent controversy..." (page 4), "historiographical controversy surrounding Pius" (page 14). QED. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please vote (please limit comments here, post diatribes above)

His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust became increasingly controversial in the years after his death.

Favor:

Approve Good enough, reflects both sides. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Dominick, why not respond to my suggestion and points above? I think we are having a discussion that might get somewhere - a poll should be very much the last resort.Bengalski 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil! We have discussed this at length at it is clear that it is problematic. Oppose. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Narrative Thread for Holocaust Section

Considering the amount of controversy the above minor question is generating, it may be a case of Pandora opening the box, but here it goes...

I think the core of the article (as far as controversy goes) is probably the Holocaust section. Right now, it is very terse and fact oriented, consisting of a list of dates and events. The advantage of going with a 'just the facts' approach in a controversial topic is that it avoids debate. However, it seems to me that one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia (being an overview rather than an in-dept investigation) is to provide the reader with a general understanding of the historical sweep of the subject.

We need to provide some sort of narrative framework for the reader in this section rather than a rap sheet of facts.

One of the difficulties, of course, is that there are many different issues that could be brought up -- some casting the Catholic Church or Pius XII personally in a better light, some in a worse. There is also the issue of length, the article is already very, very long.

I would propose a two-prong approach. For a more in-depth approach, we need a Catholic Church and the Holocaust article. This would deal with both the question of the Vatican's particular behavior, and also the wider questions of how members of the Church and heirarchy responded to the War and the Holocaust.

The Holocaust section of the Pius XII article should focus fairly closely on Pius' statements and actions, while linking to the Catholic Church and the Holocaust article. It should probably provide a very brief summary of what Pius did say, historians explaining why he should or shouldn't have said more, and then segue into the various specific works mentioned in following sections.

BTW, does anyone know of a full text available online of Pius' 1942 Christmas address? I haven't had any luck yet with Google, and it seems like something from that might be in order (plus contemporary reactions to it) since that appears to have been his major public statement on the topic during the war.

Thoughts? Brendanhodge 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely feel you on most of these issues. A word of caution: every book I have read on Pius that attempts a narrative structure ultimately proves biased in one mannor or the other. An encyclopedia should have both an overview (in the intro, and at the beginning of sections) and an in depth statement of facts. I think that we do that. I agree with you that Wikipedia needs a Catholic Church and the Holocaust article, but as far as I'm aware there is nothing in this article which only applies to the Catholic Church in general, it only discusses issues in as much as they are significant to Pius; if you think this is not the case, please let me know specifically, and I'll fix it myself. I haven't seem a text of the xmass address, but it really wasn't the "major public statement" at the time. The reason it has become so much of a focal point for the discussion is that he turns briefly to current events in vague terms at the end of the address, and these have been interpreted in a variety of ways. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing about Pius XII and so-called historians; they venture to state what Pius XII should have done but didn't do. This is not the proper work of an historian. Historians are there to record facts, not give opinions as if they were mind-readers, or inverse prophets, as to what men in the past had in mind, what facts they knew, and what they had to weigh for prudent decisions, or even what decisions were based upon the necessity of choosing "the lesser evil". I don't consider any historian reputable who makes such gross mistakes while touching upon history, and I don't think WP considers such private conclusions of historians authoritative.

As for judging omissions, it is generally a free-for-all business. One must be careful to prove FIRSTLY that a person had knowledge of a problem, and that it was strictly his office to take care of it, as well as seeing if toleration of a problem was due to the necessity of choosing a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. That is a conscientious duty when dealing with a person's reputation. Assuming good will includes making excuses for people. This somewhat pertains to what I am currently discussing in another section here that I have to get back to. (Diligens 10:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

We assume good will of other editors, not historical figures we are writing articles about. And I don't think it's our job to be making excuses for anyone.Bengalski 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The essence and act of "assuming good will" inherently involves making excuses for people. Read the descriptions and examples in the WP guidelines and you will see that this is so - making excuses in a positive way, that is, in their favor. And this is not some arbitrarily invented rule just for WP; it is and has been a part of society first, of which Wikipedia is merely a part, sub-section or microcosm. WP is not another planet run by aliens. Society runs on this. Legal contracts run on this. The laws run on this, because it is a reasonable element of proper and good order. Therefore, WP does so also, and it doesn't apply here because people are editors or because people are wikipedians, it applies here because we are people, and people should be treated that way. That includes not just who we interact with here, but also for the living or the dead that we are writing about. People are people and they deserve fairness and the assumption of good will. WP works off verifiability, but just because an historian decides to make a personal conclusion does not mean a quote by him is considered evidence. An historian is supposed to relate facts just as editors of WP are supposed to, with proof. They can suggest possibilities, but these suggestions are not proof for us now. I am going to put on my list of things To-Do adding some of these explicit things to the WP guidelines and policies in the appropriate places....though they really are already implied, and people are apt to lose sight of the underlying principles. (Diligens 13:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, no. If eg. there is an action of Pius XII for which we do not have a well-sourced explanation, then we should't assume anything. Neither that he acted with good will nor with bad will. Without evidence, we must simply leave it as an unknown. If you want to debate philosophy of history - I think our obligation is not to make excuses for the dead, but to be as objective as possible, because that is how we can learn the clearest possible lessons and most benefit the living.Bengalski 13:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that monday morning quarterbacking a given historical figure (especially without sufficient regard for context) can quickly become both unprofessional and unfair. However, I don't think that is in any sense necessary in order to provide a narrative thread to the section in question.

For instance, I think the sections on Pius' time as cardinal secretary of state and the following section on the Reichskonkordat provide a fairly good example of a narrative thread that sets the facts in proper context while on imposing a strong editorial judgement. The secretary of state section explains that the Vatican sought to establish concordats with a number of governments (which it lists along with the dates of ratification) and explains the motive for forming such concordats. The section on the Reichskonkordat then goes on to explain how the most famous/controversial of these concordats came to be made. No particular POV is presented as to whether Pius put too high a value on having a concordat so the Church could operate legally in Germany, although perhaps certain readers might draw that conclusion.

It seems to me that what is missing from the Holocaust section is any explanation of what Pius' general priorities were in how he dealt with both Allied and Axis governments during the war, and with Jewish communities in specific regions. We have some statements in that direction such as Pius replied that the Vatican wished to remain "neutral," but no statement of general policy or context for that policy within the wider world of what was going on at the time.

That's where I think the current fact-list approach breaks down. Not so much that any of the facts are not true or are not relevant, but rather that the reader is given no particular context or narrative in which to understand those facts.Brendanhodge 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A fair point. In particular I think a big thing lacking is Pacelli's anticommunism - to my mind, also I think that of most historians, crucial context of his policy in the period. Of course it's not going to be easy to do - the reichskonkordat is a contested issue, but WW2 and the holocaust much more so - but we can give it a go. I'd suggest we use the talk page for drafting something and try to reach consensus here before rewriting the article.Bengalski 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to learn more about Pius's anticommunist activities, which took placed before, during, and after World War II. The article certainly touches on the important ones, like reinterpreting divini redemptoris, but there are possibly others that are important. As for the Reicshkonkordat, I think there is too much "context" already. This article is just about Pacelli; most of what people try to add to that section should be in that article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

problematic sentence

"On the night of the Beer Hall Putsch, Franz Matt, the only member of the German cabinet not present at the Bürgerbräu Keller, was having dinner with Pacelli and Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber."

Why it is important that they were having dinner. Is everyone that Pacelli had dinner with notable? Is this just a bit of trivia? Or is this implying some sort of conspiracy? Either way it should be made clear, or removed. Jon513 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just trivia. I suppose you could make a conspiracy theory out of it, but given the circumstances this seems more notable than some dinners... if they want context they can click on the link to Franz Matt—his actions once he heard about the coup were ultimately critical to its failure, but not extremely relevant to this article. In this instance, I think Pacelli was just an observer of history. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Election and Coronation section

What is the reference for "Pius's coronation was the grandest in 100 years"? I understand that some authors make the analysis that there was a choice between a spiritual and diplomatic candidate but this needs to be attributed and sourced to the analyst, not stated as a fact. Also, the thing about being the first Cardinal Secretary of State since whenever is already in the Cardinal Secretary of State section. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a source would be on 'grandest in 100 years' since gandiosity would be pretty subjective anyway. The pastoral vs. diplomatic thing does strike me as interesting, as does the first choice of a secretary of state since the 1600s.Brendanhodge 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As for being the first secretary of state, I'm fine with removing that from the Cardinal secretary of state section as well, but it shouldnt be in both. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hit you up

Dear Savidan, you asked me to hit you up and I will do so quickly, as I will be barely active today and tomorrow. I reverted your deletion of the info as I have taken it directly out of the book too strong, but it is taken from that book. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, I guess you didn't see my comment directly above this...savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I have seen but do not fully understand. If you want to tone it down, please do so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is highly biased

This article is biased since it lists numerous facts which (deliberately?) have been separated from their historical context. One historical fact is described often with not more than one sentence or two. The cited works often are only secondary sources and not primary ones in terms of historical research. The discussion as well reveals a lot of half-knowledge and wishful thinking. A close look on what sentences were removed shows, that only those in favor of Pius XII. were removed. The reasons for removal are more than questionable.

Instead of listing historical facts without any coherence, the authors of this article should dedicate themselves only to the description of the state of the discussion. (i.e. "Critics state, that Pius XII. ..." and "Defenders of Pius XII. quote that he ..." --UAltmann 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I agree, the article is tendentious. It doesn't do justice to Pacelli (or the Vatican). The long list of facts (often out of context, many also in his favor), doesn't help. Ch.Zalka --62.203.121.194 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I think we do have a lot about the state of the discussion and I think that you will see that it has improved in the article recently and will continue to improve. However, this article is not about some abstract argument between those who think that Pius was Hitler reincarnate and those who think that he was Jesus reincarnate. First and foremost it is a biography, and I believe a quite balanced and accurate one at that. This historical argument is only discussed to the degree that it is notable and to the degree that it calls into question facts about Pius's life. Perhaps subarticles for the actual books is where some of the things you are suggesting should be hashed out, if at all.

Do you have any specific grievances? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Beneath the subtitle „The Reichskonkordat”, the article says:

“Pacelli viewed the Nazis as an anti-Communist party of Christian principles.”

The latter part of this sentence (christian principles) is absolutely misleading. Pius wrote to a Friend of his as far back as in 1929:

• "Ich müsste mich sehr, sehr täuschen, wenn dies hier ein gutes Ende nehmen sollte. Dieser Mensch ist völlig von sich selbst besessen, alles, was ihm nicht dient, verwirft er, was er sagt und schreibt, trägt den Stempel seiner Selbstsucht, dieser Mensch geht über Leichen und tritt nieder, was ihm im Weg ist - ich kann nur nicht begreifen, dass selbst so viele von den Besten in Deutschland dies nicht sehen, oder wenigstens aus dem, was er schreibt und sagt, eine Lehre zu ziehen - wer von all diesen hat überhaupt das haarsträubende Buch »Mein Kampf« gelesen?" - über Adolf Hitler, 1929

• Engl.: "I should be very very wrong if this is supposed to take a good end. This man is absloutely obsessed of himself, he disposes of everything which does not serve him, what he says and writes bears the seal of his selfishness, this man is walking over dead bodies and kicks down everything, which is in his way – I cannot belive, that so many of the best in Germany do not realize this or do not take what he says and writes as a lesson – who of all these people has ever read this shocking book “Mein Kampf”?" About Hitler, 1929 http://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pius_XII.

On the contrary, Pius XII. viewed the Nazis as „Neuheiden“ (new heathen), as he spoke out in many publications (read the letters to the bishops in Germany, read the encyclicas). Among the Nazis, he was kown as their enemy (read the files of the Reichsregierung, i.e. the reaction of the Reichsregierung to the Christmas Address of Pius XII. in 1942).

The true reason for the Reichskonkordat is not told in this article. As far back as in the 1870, where Germany was ruled under the hegemony of Prussia – Bismarck asserted himself with his doctrine, that catholics should have no access to key positions in business and public administration of Prussia (Kulturkampf). The catholic church was very much deprived of the freedom of religion, whereas all other religions were not kept from exercising their belief. This was the cancellation of the Act of Tolerance, which was proclaimed long time before by Friedrich II. (The Great) King of Prussia (frederizianisches Toleranzedikt).

Ever since, the Holy See has attempted to reach an agreement with the government of Prussia and later on Germany. When the Holy See regained souvereignity in the 1920s, the attempts were reinforced. The aim of those attempts was mainly to prevent such a Kulturkampf from ever happening again, to create a safe space in terms of religious freedoms for the church and its believers to pursue their religion.

But – as the article states correctly – there was a strong opposition against a concordate with the Holy See, mostly coming from the social democrats and the protestants. Pacelli and Pius XI. thus took advantage of Hitler’s rise to power.

But their primary aim was not to relieve Hitler from international isolation. They were so much addicted to reaching this concordate, that they did take into account helping Hitlers international reputation as an inevitable consequence.

Hitler promised himself the absolute contrary from this concordate. He wanted to create a legal basis for forcing the Vatican to absolute neutrality, to absolutely keep out of politics.

When Pius XII. later in 1940 officially complained to the Reichsregierung about the treatment of catholic priests in Poland, he understood this as an exercise of religious freedom, granted by the concordate. Hitlers Government replied that the vatican should keep out of politics, taking the basis for this action from the very same concordate, this is a true irony of history.

2. A sentence was taken out of this article, which quoted Dalin stating that Hitler publicly discussed invading the Vatican.

The reason for taking it out was that “this was the lowest point of Dalin’s publication.” (see discussion).

What is the reason for such harsh verdict?

--UAltmann 13:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As for your #1, I removed it. I wasn't the one who added it and I agree that the quote should stand on its own, without such questionable interpretation. Additionally, we do give some context to the Vatican's rationale for signing Concordat's but any further context should be given in the Reichskonkordat article; this article is just about Pius.

As for your #2, Hitler discussing invading the Vatican, we just didn't have a good enough source for that. Dalin doesn't really address the question in a scholarly way. According to the index of Dalin's book he discusses it in three places. First one page 13, he refers to "Hitler's order to the SS to kidnap the Pope." There is no endnote for this sentence and thus no source. On pages 76-77 he comes a little closer. He refers first to the minutes of some Nazi meeting—again, no citation. Next, he referrs to this Wolff guy who apparently recieved order to totally cannibalize the Vatican, but claims to have talked Hitler out of it himself. For this, Dalin actually does cite someone: himself! Namely, his article 2001 article in the Weekly Standard which is extremely controversial. This is not a reputable publication among historians nor a peer reviewed one. Finnally on pages 116-117 he admitts that the majority of the "liberal media" refuses to write about this plot. Publications like the New York Times (as well as every scholar who does archival research) don't carry the story and Italian Catholic tabloids like Avvenire d'Italia do. I think that we should aspire to be more like the former when it comes to fact checking and not publishing dumb conspiracy theories. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I will soon be able to deliver a reliable source for # 2, I do not see why the archives in Berlin should not have one of those telegrams filed. I dare say that many of the sources cited are just statements of opinions. This much to the problematics of secondary literature. More specific grievances:

The deputy

- needs in my view a hint, that this drama is pure poetry, fiction, and not an elaborate of historical science.

Thanks for your comments. As for the deputy, I will add some more about the plot summary and historicity of the play, but I should tell you that Hochhuth didn't consider himself to be writing fiction and some to this day consider it an accurate interpretation. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hochhuth admitted often it was fiction with a slight bit of truth in it, yes he even sometimes defended himself recalling on his civil/human rights as a poet. It is true that many people believe him to be right, that does not change anything about the quality of his findings. UAltmann 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment. Sanchez's book has some pretty good citations to the original here, including the appendices where Hochhuth explained his view of the historicity of the work. Take a look at my additions to the article and see if you still disagree. For example, nobody refers to Birth of a Nation as a fictional film despite the fact that no one today agrees wit the version of history depicted in the film and the fact that the film is almost univerally considered racist. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Hochhuth is not a scientist (historian) and his citations and so-called proofs are highly questionable. If you criticise Dalin discovering low points in his publications, then the same measures should be applied to Hohhuth, who is even lower than Dalin. The way he characterizes Gerstein and his report (where is the document? Hochhuth has failed until today to render the report dating from 1942!) is nothing else than fictional. But not enough: Hochhuth has published wrong translations of letters of Pius. These translations suggest some sort of antisemitism. As one reads the italian orgiginal, one quickly finds that the original and Hochhuth's translation have litlle in common. UAltmann 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Never did I insinuate Hochhuth was a historian nor do I subscribe to his interpretation as capital-t truth. However, it is simply inaccurate to use the adjective "fictional". Maybe you are not familiar with the example that I used earlier, but I think that you can agree that theres a difference between being wrong and being fictional. The article already devotes space to criticisms of The Deputy despite not even including a summary of it. Most of the things that you bring up in your previous post are too minor for this article, but would be welcome in the article on The Deputy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor did I say that you said so. Hochhuth's story lacks the densitiy of evidence that you claim for every statement ("Do you have a source for this?"). Hochhuth ist a dramatist, his work is a drama, it tells a story, and this story comes mainly from the brains of somebody quite traumatized by the nazi - horrors, regarding a more or less willing scape-goat in everybody who is catholic. As to your differenciation, his conclusion "This pope is a criminal" is wrong, the story "Gerstein went to the Vatican in 1942" is fiction. There doesn't need to be a statement in the article about the qualitiy of his conclusion, but there needs to be a hint that Hochhuth himself often recalled on his "dichterische Freiheit" (poetrical freedom). UAltmann 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclicals

- is lacking to cite “Summi Pontificatus” (1939), in which at the eve of the War Pius XII called to preserve peace and turned against totalitarism of whatever kind. When Pius XII later on said to be unable to denounce individual atrocities, he never failed to point to this encyclica and those of his predecessor Pius XI, which were clearly condemning racism, anti semitism and totalitarism. An encyclica applies unless it is formally revoked. All Popes have avoided to speak out on one issue “too often”, stating that if an encyclica has dealt with an issue already, even if it was from a predecessor, a pope did not need to make a new statement on the same issue again.

As for Summi Pontificatus, I added a sentence about it, but once again the encyclical did not name the Nazis and as with many of Pius's statements, has been interpreted by some to apply equally to the Communists. It's really not that notable beyond being his first; it didn't really have any effect on the dogma of the church, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It did not need to name the nazis since Pius XI named them before. Pius XII considered himself - as all other popes as well - to be bound to all his predecessor's rulings unless he would reinterprete those. I believe that this is necessary to know in order to understand the systematics of the vatican's statements. By the way, these systematics have not changed eversince. UAltmann 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious to you here that we have left the realm of the primary source (Summi Pontificatus) and ventured into the realm of interpretation. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as he turns against totalitarism in this summi pontificatus and directly criticizes the occupation of Poland, he turns against the nazis. Noone has to do any interpretation to come to this conclusion. But people read only what they want to read, I suppose. But read yourself: "106. Venerable Brethren, the hour when this Our first Encyclical reaches you is in many respects a real "Hour of Darkness" (cf. Saint Luke xxii. 53), in which the spirit of violence and of discord brings indescribable suffering on mankind. Do We need to give assurance that Our paternal heart is close to all Our children in compassionate love, and especially to the afflicted, the oppressed, the persecuted? The nations swept into the tragic whirlpool of war are perhaps as yet only at the "beginnings of sorrows" (Saint Matthew xxiv. 8), but even now there reigns in thousands of families death and desolation, lamentation and misery. The blood of countless human beings, even noncombatants, raises a piteous dirge over a nation such as Our dear Poland, which, for its fidelity to the Church, for its services in the defense of Christian civilization, written in indelible characters in the annals of history, has a right to the generous and brotherly sympathy of the whole world, while it awaits, relying on the powerful intercession of Mary, Help of Christians, the hour of a resurrection in harmony with the principles of justice and true peace." UAltmann 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, please keep your comments on this talk page limited to the content of this article. We certainly do not need to include a massive block quotation from an encyclical which is not even his most important. This could be added to the the Summi Pontificatus article if you wish. All I was commenting on before, is that it would be wrong to state that the encyclical condemned Nazism when it doesn't actually refer to it by name. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But this selected content is what I am critisizing. What is the reason that "Mit brennender Sorge" is not mentioned, although you can read in every other book, that Pacelli was mainly responsible for its content (among von Preysing)? What is the reason that you need to read the word "nazis" as he condemned everything what the nazis stood for? Again: If the article leaves out a comment on those two encyclicals, the characterization of Pius XII then is wrong. Furthermore, do you want to split up his whole life in separate articles? UAltmann 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WW II

- Reception of Ante Pavelic: There is an unclear word relation: “…described him (whom? Ante Pavelic or Pius XII?) as ….”

Fixed savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

- “…reduced to utter destinction…” Many people claim, that this condemnation in the Chrismas broadcast was too short and too unspecific. Pius XII knew of those claims. He wrote on April 30th, 1943 to Bishop von Preysing of Berlin: „... At least, the Holy See has received much recognition from jewish centres for his work on saving Jews. What is happening to the non-aryans in the german occupied areas We have already made a statement against in our Chistmas broadcast. It was short, however, but it was well understood.” This letter has been published by “Documentation catholique" on 2nd February, 1964.

It's not clear what you want added about the Christmas address; neither the criticism you bring up or the rebuttal seem notable. Perhaps if we had an article just about his Christmas address... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting to know how different opinions were at that time, and interesting to know that Pius was really aware of the criticism. One more example: F.D.R. sent Tittman (or was it Myron Taylor? I am not sure) over to Pius to tell him, that his condemnations in the Christmas broadcast could as well be applied to the bombing of german towns by the allied airforces. The pope was a little surprised, replied that he could not have been more direct. The nazis however understood him well, since they replied that the pope obviously gave up neutrality and has changed sides to the allied and the (yes!) jews. UAltmann 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, [Albert Camus] publicly denounced the silence of the Vatican during the WWII. "And why shouldn't I say here what I have written elsewhere? For a long time durin gthose frightful years, I waited for a great voice to speak up in Rome...It has been explained to me since that the condemnation was indeed voiced. But it was in the style of the encyclicals, which is not at all clear. The condemnation was voiced and it was not understood! Who could fail to feel where the true condemnation lies?" from The Unbeliever and the Christians (Resistance, Rebellion and Death, Vintage International, 1st edition)

Lithuania

- “the Pope declined to act…” This is a citation of a secondary source, of an opinion. It needs to be declared as such.

I know it's a secondary source, but it's not an opinion. He literally "declined" (as in he told the dude "no"). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That much to it, yes. But he told his Bishops to act, as he really did everywhere. Unlike him, the Bishops did not have face the dilemma of being a clergyman (bound to the divine law and to the conscience) and as well a statesman (strict neutrality as a duty imposed by several international agreements). UAltmann 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There really is no evidence that he told his Bishops to do anything of the sort or even that they did. Show me a source for your claim before we proceed on this point. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the 'actes et documents' etc. I am not allowed to change things in the article. As you are the one to mainly supervise the changes, you should take the effort to read sources, as they really are there. UAltmann 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you are allowed to edit the article, unless the arbitration committee has banned you from editing it, which seems unlikely given the small number of edits in your account. I honestly wish that I could read the Actes, but as it has yet to be translated into English, that probably won't happen anytime soon. It seems unlikely that such a document would exist, which none of Pius's many scholarly defenders have yet to pick up on. But seriously, I am going to consider this complaint resolved for now; the standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Don't claim that facts cited to reliable sources are incorrect without having another source to back that claim up. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My account is yet too new that I could edit a protected article. Many - though not every - secondary sources state things, which they turned around in their sense, regrettably this is very often the case especially in this highly political matter. Cornwell did so, Goldhagen did so, and Hochhuth did so. This is why I primarily rely on primary sources. But I do understand that this is not - and cannot be - the policy of Wikipedia. This is why I am calling to state the state of discussion more entirely. UAltmann 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Refusals to denounce atrocities

- France: this is only half the truth. Pope Pius XII protested officially against the „ inhuman arrests and deportation of Jews from France to Silesia and Russia“in June 1942 through his nuncio at the Vichy-government.

The article doesn't say he refused to denounce attrocities in France. All it says is about the Jewish codes and it gives a nuanced view comparing it to his views of other Jewish codes which he did object to. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the reader understands this fine and distinctive nuancing. At least I seem to be too dumb for that... :-) UAltmann 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

- The article says: “ In January 1943, Pius would again refuse to publicly denounce the Nazi violence against Jews, following requests from Wladislaw Raczkyewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, and Bishop Konrad von Preysing of Berlin”

This is again half the truth. Both Bishops asked the Pope to not publicly criticize those actions, because they noted: As soon as a statement of criticism is made, the treatment of inmates in concentration camps or ghettos is worsening immediately.

What is the source for this? I'm not aware of either Preysing or Raczkiewicz asking Pius not to condemn anything. I'd be glad to be wrong. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a native english speaker, but doesn't "following requests ... " mean that Pius acted as those two people requested? My criticism is about not stating the reason for this request. UAltmann 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you state: 'fixed', could you please verify, if - after this change - the quotation is still correct? I doubt it. Pinchas Lapide quotes an Italian Jew who, with the Vatican's help, managed to escape the Nazi deportation of Rome's Jews in October 1943, as stating unequivocally twenty years later: "none of us wanted the Pope to speak out openly. We were all fugitives and we did not want to be pointed out as such. The Gestapo would have only increased and intensified its inquisition…it was much better the Pope kept silent. We all felt the same, and today we still believe that." Bishop Jean Bernard of Luxembourg, an inmate of Dachau from February 1941 to August 1942, notified the Vatican that "whenever protests were made, treatment of prisoners worsened immediately."

Consider it verified. You could also read the Online Jewish Virtual Library if you don't believe me. What you say is true, some people were asking Pius not to speak out about certain things, but that doesn't disprove the fact that other people were asking him to speak about other things. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You were (are) right. I checked it up (Pierre Blet, Excerpt of the ADSS, 2001). I must have messed up names... Raczkiewicz (as well as Card. Hlond) really insisted on filing a harsh protest. UAltmann 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Zolli, then chief rabbi of Rome

- The article says: “On September 26, 1943, following the Nazi invasion of Italy, Nazi officials gave Jewish leaders in Rome 36 hours to produce 50 kilograms of gold (or the equivalent in dollars or sterling) threatening to take 300 hostages. In his memoir

(in WHOSE memoir?? Eugenio Zolli’s?)

then Chief Rabbi of Rome, recounts that he was selected to go to the Vatican and seek help.”

Fixed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

- The article says: “The Vatican offered to loan 15 kilos, but the offer proved unnecessary when the Jews received an extension”

This is wrong. Zolli warned his fellows to hand out the gold and advised them to render the hostages instead. Then he would turn to Pius in order to liberate those hostages again. The vote of his fellows overturned his opinion. His fellows had collected 35 kilos, then he was elected to turn to Pius for the lacking 15 kilos, which he indeed received from the vatican. The Nazis then – as Zolli had predicted - took both the gold and the jewish hostages. This can be read in the memoirs of Zolli.

The Israel Pocket Library as well as the online Jewish virtual library corroborate it the way it is stated in the article. What we may need to do here is state the difference between the sources; I don't have a copy of Zolli's memoirs so I can't get the page numbers. Do you? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But I have to look it up, this will take a while. I only have the german translation as well. One thing may be worth mentioning: Since Zolli converted to catholicism soon after the war, he came in for a great deal of criticism, yes he was even much hated for this step. His memoirs are mainly a defense and a justification of his own measures taken during the time of persecution, since his parish after the war blamed him of having left them alone already 'during' the war. UAltmann 16:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it makes a significant narrative difference if Pius was asked for 15 kilos and he complied, since otherwise it sounds like he was asked for 50 kilos and said he would give only 15. Brendanhodge 18:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand the total ransom was 50 and he was only asked for 15. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

v. Weizsäcker:

- “On October 28, 1943, Weizsacker, the German Ambassador to the Vatican, telegrammed Berlin that the pope "has not allowed himself to be carried away [into] making any demonstrative statements against the deportation of the Jews."

Again, only half the truth. Von Weizsäcker learned of the plans of Hitler to invade the vatican (I will render the source as soon as I can, see above). Then he warned the vatican in a telegram, saying it would be hazardous if the vatican provoked Berlin. To Berlin, he sent messages of appeasement such as this telegram cited. I strongly oppose to this citation of single sentences and this description of complex matters with only one sentence! This is tearing the things apart so they loose their true meaning!

OK. If it is the same source which claims the that there was a plot to kidnap Pius, it can be stated in the same way (i.e. attribute it to Weizsacker in the same way as the current quote). If you can track down the citation I have no objection. Is it Weizsacker himself who makes this interpretation or is that a secondary source? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is von Weizsäcker himself in his memoirs, as far as I know. I will look it up and be right back. UAltmann 16:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following from the article; it doesn't seem to have much to do with Pius at all: savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In 1999, a class action lawsuit against the Vatican Bank (and others) was filed in the United States by various Holocaust survivors, alleging collusion in war crimes by the Ustashe regime of the Independent State of Croatia. In addition, the same lawsuit concerns secreting large vaults of war loot from Croatia into Vatican accounts. The suit alleges these funds were used to finance 'rat-line' escape routes for Nazi and other fascist war-criminals such as the Catholic Ustashe leadership who were allegedly assisted by Vatican agencies to find safe haven mostly in South America. (See also:ODESSA.)

UAltmann

From what I gather from your most recent comment, you have two remaining grievances with the article. The first is that you think the article gives to much credence to The Deputy and the second is that you want Mit Brennender Sorge mentioned.

As for The Deputy, I agree that Hochhuth was a dramatist and that the play was a drama; indeed, the article uses the word drama. You have not responded to my comments above about why the word "fiction" would be inaccurate, and indeed the article includes criticism of the play without even describing in detail the indictment of the play. Thus, I see no obvious way to act on this.

As for Mit Brennender Sorge, I agree that it should be mentioned in this article, despite being an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, not Pope Pius XII. There used to be a mention of it, and I have added one to the "Cardinal Secretary of State Section". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Blet, one of the publishers of the ADSS, recently (2001) published an excerpt of the ADSS. Regrettably, he hardly uses footnotes referring to specific documents of the ADSS. To come to the point, I found out that you were right as far as the polish clergymen (esp. the polish primas Hlond) and exile gov't members (Raczkiewicz) are concerned. They really insisted for more than 13 months (from may 1942 to June 1943) on Pius to make a public (and not only diplomatic) statement against the persecution, deportation and execution of catholic clergymen, priests and nuns until he finally reacted. He again stated that too harsh protest could result into the very opposite of its original intention.

As for the Deputy, I agree that the word drama does it.

As for the issue "Mit brennender Sorge", I have a copy of the original print finally corrected (and harshened!) by the handwriting of Cardinal Pacelli. Far from wanting it to put in this article, it is a good reference to what Pacelli's thoughts were like. As soon I have verified the copyrights of it, I am going to place it into the article of "Mit brennender Sorge".

UAltmann 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a picture of his draft of Mit Brennender Sorge or the text of his edits? If a picture, I would support placing it in this article where the picture of him with the Guttenberg bible is, assuming that the copyright status is OK. Did you ever get a chance to look through Zolli's autobiography as you mentioned above? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a picture of a typed page with additional, corrective handwritings of Pacelli. UAltmann 07:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! Let's see it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I insert images here? The FAQ's of Wikipedia didn't help me really, since I am quite new at this... UAltmann 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

File:MIT BRENNENDER SORGE.JPG

Draft of Mit brennender Sorge with the original corrections of Pacelli

File:MIT BRENNENDER SORGE CLOSE VIEW.JPG

Draft of Mit brennender Sorge with the original corrections of Pacelli, close view

I tried to insert the pictures, but they don't fit to the size of the image. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. UAltmann 08:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The resolution is a little lower than I expected; I can't really tell what his changes are. Also, how do you know that the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights? I know, for example, that the Vatican copyrights the current Pope's speeches and letters. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mit brennender Sorge andDivini Redemptoris

In the context of Mit brennender Sorge, should we also mention Divini Redemptoris? Looking briefly at the two it is striking how much more overt DR is in its condemnation of communism (e.g., it specifically names communism and bolshevism numerous times, whereas MBS doesn't actually name 'Nazism' once - forgive me if I've missed it, as it was only a very brief look). If Pacelli had the same input on the two encyclicals (did he?), published in the same year, this seems germane to the discussion of his 'silence'. No one seems to have referenced an overt, in as many words, condemnation of the Nazis from him, whereas he had no problem at all stridently condemning communist regimes.Bengalski 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pius did reinterpret divini redemptoris during the war and as such that is mentioned. However, I am hesitant to mention any specific acts or documents of any of his predecessors unless there is a specific connection to Pacelli. MBS passes that threshold because by many accounts he had a significant impact on its production. I haven't read anything about Pacelli's role in DR, but if there is notable information about it I'd be open to including it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

MBS has originally been edited in german and was especially directed to the german bishops because of the circumstances in Germany. Therefore, it was obvious that Pius XI. (or Pacelli, if you want) was talking about noone else than the nazis. MBS did not name the nazis, but it named (and condemned) everything they stood for, especially, MBS condemned racism. In my eyes, the true spirit of MBS is so obvious, that leaving out the word "nazis" is not causing serious lackings. For in Germany, as one might suggest to be well known, the communists did not govern at this time. UAltmann 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone doubts that the focus of the encyclical was Germany, as it was mainly engineered to protest violations of the concordat. To interpret it as a wider reaching condemnation of Nazism is possible, but still a matter of interpretation. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general, although not everything can be only subject to interpretation, since some statemens of MBS are just too direct to be only subject to interpretation. It sounds in my eyes sometimes much too indifferent just to say: it is subject to interpretation. Qui habet aures audiendi audiat. UAltmann 08:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that the fact MBS never condemns 'Nazism' in name is very important, and a telling difference with the church's attitude to communism. And it is very much open to interpretation. I would think the correct interpretation has to be informed by the context - the church had relations with the Nazi regime, had signed the concordat, and Pius and Pacelli had indeed in other contexts spoken favourably of Hitler's policies. The church was happy to work with Nazis and saw that its interests and Hitler's overlapped in many respects. The encyclical is not condemning Nazism per se. It is merely protesting that the Nazis have gone 'too far' with infringements of what is seen as the church's domain.

Eg. look at the much-quoted passage that is supposed to be attacking Nazi racism: Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

Actually this doesn't condemn political concepts of race or the state at all. Indeed you could read this passage as saying that a certain degree of political racism might even be a 'fundamental value of the human community', 'necessary and honourable'. So long as it isn't taken to an 'idolatrous level'.

So here's an interpretation for you: Nazism as such is fine, so long as it doesn't go to such extremes that it starts trespassing on what the church sees as its own territory - particularly, the rights recognised in the concordat. There is nothing wrong with Nazis, so long as they don't overstep the bounds they agreed to in the concordat of 1933. This may or may not be the right interpretation. But the text is open to it - because Nazism is never explicitly condemned or named.

The position with respect to communism is very different. Divini Redemptoris is an all out attack on "the communist plague" per se, in its entirety, and with specific reference to existing regimes in Russia and Mexico. It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality. etc etc in great length.Bengalski 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The church was not happy to work with the nazis, this statement of yours lacks all evidence whatsoever and is therfore - excuse me - &%$§*'#!!! What do you know about the concordate? What do you know about the main motives of the vatican for the concordate? When have Pius XI. and Pius XII. spoken favourably of the Nazi regime exept for in diplomatic notes, which are mostly so sweet and nicely written, that they never can be taken serious in terms of historical evidence?

Would you suggest that Chamberlain was happy to work with the Nazis when signing the Munich agreement, which had more effects than the comparably ineffective concordate?

The reasons for the concordate go as far back as to the 1860's. In Prussia, Bismarck was chief of the executive. His doctrine was to not to grant catholics access to key offices in administrations and business. This was later on to be named as the "Kulturkampf". Pius XI. had exactly this in mind when urging for the concordate. This is simply always forgotten when discussions about the concordate occur. Of course, the vatican took into account that it was a gain of international reputation for the nazi government, but this was the very same aim for themselves: the vatican state at this time was only in the fourth or fifth year after its foundation through the Lateran Agreements. They needed international reputation just as well. Apart from this, they did not have anything in favour for the nazis.

As to your quotation: If you come to the conclusion that this does not condemn racism, than we are - sorry - more than worlds apart. Just read the root of the sentence: Whoever exalts race, ... distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God ... Keep in mind, that the encyclical had to be distributed to the parishes secretly, despite the germans had one of the most effective polices at that time, the manuscripts had to be hidden in the tabernacles in order to prevent its seizure by the nazis! For what then, you may ask? Because it dit not condemn racism and the nazis? You really gotta be kiddin'! If both the popes were appreciating some basic kind of racism, as you seem to say, why did Pius XII. hide Jews then?? So far, Pius XI.'s intentioned were not questioned by any Historian, do you want to start the undertaking to do so?

What indeed was widely spread among clergymen of that time was a religious anti-judaism, but not a racist anti-semitism. This destinction shoud really be made since it is common opinion today.

Now, why did it not name the nazis by name? Because the vatican was surrounded by nazi-friendly territory! What this meant shoud be clear. Later on, when the nazis occupied Poland, they killed soon some 2,000 clergymen, among them 5 Bishops, what the would't do anywhere else. The circumstances under which the pope could criticize the communists were different. He was not in constant danger of occupation by the communists and the catholic church in Russia was nonexistent. Furthermore, he made those statements at a time when there was no world war.

You should read more of the private correspondence of Pius XI. and XII. in order to complete your sources about their motives and thougths a little, could at least not be wrong. John Cornwell and his mates are for sure the wrong sources for this. UAltmann 20:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this discussion's going to go anywhere, but I'll have one last go to make myself clearer:

The church was not happy to work with the nazis? Without going beyond what's already in the article, we have two sources quoted on Pacelli (in private conversations, not diplomatic communiques) urging German catholic politicians to work with them: Bruning and Ritter. Cornwell doesn't come into this.

On the famous MBS quote: to fill in some of the dots you left out, it reads - Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community. So if this is condemning race is it also condemning the people, the state, depositories of power, and other 'fundamental values of the human community'?

the catholic church in Russia was nonexistent - but Mexico and Spain, the other two countries named alongside Russia in the encyclical?

he made those statements at a time when there was no world war - the two encyclicals were written in the same year, 1937, two years before the war started.

On the supposed distinction between 'anti-judaism' and anti-semitism I think yes we're probably going to be worlds apart.Bengalski 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the above very carefully, and I do not detect any actionable suggestion for the article. Please continue this discussion here only in the context of this article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as a discussion or an opinion doesn't follow certain ideas it is not leading anywhere... Sorry, to me, this is minimalism. Read the whole encyclical MBS, do not only read sec. 8, but also sec. 14! There you can see, that Pius XI. and his ghostwriter Pacelli are turnig against racism. Read the whole thing, before you make misinterpretations of that kind.

Anti-Judaism (not justifiable, of course) was a widespread phenomenon among catholics and - before all- was religiously motivated (which does not make it better). Anti-semitism was motivated by racism, this is to be condemned as well, but it is another (para-scientific and extreme political) motivation. The anti-judaism of most of the Catholics may have led to Pacelli saying in the beginnig of the persecutions "The Jews may well be able to help themselves". Catholic anti-judaism may possibly have made many Catholics blind for the suffering of the Jews. But it is historically not correct to speak of racist motives of Pacelli. This Distinction is a Distinction of motives and the Distinction should not be criticized as coming from a suspicious corner, as I may have read between your lines. Nobody less than Pinchas Lapide refers to this phenomenon "anti-judaism" in his Book "Three Popes and the Jews".

It should be pointed out that Pius XII. later on (1942) most obviously changed his mind, as far as the help for the persecuted was concerned.

As for the article, it is simply lacking a lot of coherence, it does not tell a story between all the facts listed, the facts are only referred to by using hardly more than one sentence which has sometimes a falsifying effect. In order to avoid repititions, I point to my criticism earlier on this page, where I was more specific as well. But you guys may as well find a lot of reasons why this may have no meaning for the article or should be dealt with in another sub-article...... I criticize these standards that you are claiming on as doubtful since they promote minimalism and indifference. For this discussion, this is defenitively my last contribution. UAltmann 10:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

dishonest use of an image

I don't know whether it is sheer ignorance of the topic, or deliberate POV-pushing but the inclusion of a picture of an archbishop meeting Hitler to indicate some sort of Church or Pacelli sympathy with Hitler is mischevious at best, dishonest at worst. Anyone who knows anything about the topic knows very well that what is going on in the picture, as the date and background shows, is the standard meeting of the diplomatic corp to give their countries' New Years Greeting to the then German Head of State, Hitler. It carries no other meaning whatsoever. For a start in such a ceremony the archbishop would not be representing Pacelli. In those ceremonies diplomats represent their heads of state, not foreign ministers, so the archbishop at such a ceremony would be conveying the new year message of Pope Pius XI. That is done all the time. It carries no significance whatsoever. George Bush as US head of state has his ambassador pay a courtesy call on President Chirac of France every new year to deliver his new years greeting. It doesn't mean that Bush supports Chirac. If the US had an ambassador in Iraq under Saddam, that ambassador would attend the same ceremony in Baghdad. It would not in any way mean there was any sympathy for Saddam. At that ceremony in 1935, the British ambassador, representing King George V as King of the United Kingdom, would have done exactly the same as the archbishop, just as the Irish ambassador, representing King George V as King of Ireland, would have done the same also. Hitler was hardly in sympathy with the Republican government in Madrid in the 1930s, but every New Years Day his ambassador would have met the Spanish president.

Making an issue about the normal attendance of an archbishop at a standard diplomatic ceremony is ludicrous. Whatever about the other charges made against Pacelli, implying sympathy for Hitler by showing a normal picture of a normal diplomatic ceremony attended by all ambassadors and visiting dignatories in Berlin that day is blatently dishonest and frankly a disgrace. The picture has no relevance here and should be deleted. Its only relevance on Wikipedia is as an example of diplomatic courtesy calls on heads of state and assemblies of the diplomatic corp. It is disappointing that this article has sunk to the level of falsifying contexts of pictures to create a false impression of what the picture means. Wikipedia deserves better standards. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)}

I think that your change to the caption was fine, but I think it's not really fair to claim that the context was "falsified". What exactly do you think the image states or implies that is dishonest? Orsenigo was Pius's papal nuncio to Germany throughout the entirity of World War II. Supporters, opponents, and those who could care less about Pius should find that notable. If the defining moment of his papacy was the Cold War instead of World War II, him or his representatives meeting with Soviet or American leaders would be similarly appropriate. That said, I'm not married to the picture, and would support other images that are illustrative of the World War II period. That said, there should be few. Pius never met with the main leaders of the allies or axis during the war, nor did he really do anything photogenic.

Also, what is the purpose of the close-up photo of Pius's rotting corpse? I find that even more unecessary. The link that you provide as the images source shows up as a completely different picture as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re the archbishop image. It is only relevant as evidence of the simple fact that the Holy See had diplomatic relations with Germany. It carries no other meaning. But the tag on the image implies it is being used as evidence of Pacelli's attitude. That is also implied in the caption which mentions that the archbishop was Pacelli's nuncio in Germany during WWII. How is that relevant? The Holy See had over a hundred nuncios. How is the fact that as standard they had a nuncio in Berlin relevant? Do we have a picture of his pro-nuncio at the Court of St. James or the Quirinale, or in Dublin, or in Washington, in this or other articles? I don't think having this image in this article complies with fair use criteria. It adds nothing to the article.

BTW the image of Pacelli's corpse isn't of it rotting. Later images, which would be distressing to show, show it falling to pieces. But as the Vatican allows the photographing of dead popes, and has done since the death of Leo XIII in 1903, it is a newsworthy image. Close-up images of John Paul I and John Paul II were widely published, including on Wikipedia. I goofed in the link. That was a link to another image I'd downloaded, not this one. I'll correct it. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 13:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)}

The new link is fine. As for this silly discussion about the Orsenigo image: you seem to be agreeing with the only argument I was making: Orsenigo was Pacelli's representative to Germany, one of the major players in WWII and thus notable. The nuncio to Quirinale would not be nearly as notable. The caption doesn't imply any of these conspiracies that you allude to. As for fair use, I have explained the fair use rationale extensively on the image. The article discusses Pius's diplomatic relations with Germany and the rest of Europe; thus, a picture of his nuncio is fair use. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the picture of the decomposing corpse of Pius XII been removed for the same kind of reasons? Whatever the reasons were, I really appreciate it. UAltmann 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the previous picture was removed by a bot because it lacked source data. Sorry to ruin it for you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I said, I appreciate the removal. UAltmann 11:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyrights in general

The Polish wikipedia says that images created in Italy for non-artistic reasons expire from copyright after 20 years, inlcuding the images they use of Pius, meaning that almost all of these images should be public domain. However, does the Vatican have different copyright law than Italy? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This image should really be used somewhere. We need to cut down on the fairuse images and use free ones wherever possible:savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I put it as the main image for that reason but I'll leave this one here for easy reference Image:PopePiusXII choir.jpg

I also removed the picture of pius and his bird which I don't really consider encyclopedic anymore. If we are going to go with fair use images, they should be important. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhythm Method

I've come across information that Pope Pius XII made two addresses October 29, 1951, and November 26, 1951, which were translated into English and published in pamphlet form by the National Catholic Welfare Conference under the title, "Moral Questions Affecting Married Life." These addresses contained the first explicit acceptance of the Rhythm Method by the Catholic Church. This seems significant to me (prior to these addresses the church did not allow ANY form of family planning), but I'm not sure where it would go in this article. Lyrl 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Encyclicals and Theology" section would be appropriate for now. If eventually there is enough non-encyclical information, these sections can be split.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Canonizations and Beatifications

For those interested, here are the Saints and Blesseds created by Pius XII for which we have no article. Saints: Mary Euphrasia Pelletier, Saint Margaret of Hungary, Bernard Realini, Jeanne Elizabeth des Ages, Michael Garicoits, Jeanne de Lestonnac, Maria Josepha Rossello, Anthony Mary Claret, Bartolomea Capitanio, Emily de Rodat, Mariana Paredes of Jesus, Vincenza Gerosa, Vincenzo M Strambi, Anthony M Gianelli, Emilie de Vialar, Francis Xavier Bianchi, Ignatius of Laconi, Maria Domenica Mazzarello, Gaspar del Bufalo, Joseph M. Pignatelli, Maria Crocifissa di Rosa, Herman Joseph. Blessed: Justin de Jacobis, Rose Venerini, John Baptist Turpin du Cormier, Mary Assunta, Marcelino Champagnat. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A thoroughly biased article this is

What is the purpose of this article? To serve the historical myth of Pius XII being "hitler´s pope" or serving historical truth? If the latter is the objective, the article must be thoroughly re-written in some parts. The silly childish picture of some kind of holocaust survivor saying he feels the Church is responsible for the holocaust (1942-1945) because of a Reichskonkordat agreed upon in 1933 with Hindenburg Germany under Hitlerian chancellorship, is just historical rubbish. There are virtually no defending parts, even though many great Jewish historians have proven that Pius XII saved more Jews than all other organisations and countries combined. There is too much stressing Pius XII´s negative aspects and quoting of outright anti-Catholic Communist, Zionist or Nationalist propaganda, without a good reason. The posting of a picture of á Vatican delegate attending a diplomatic new year´s celebration in 1935, to insinuate the Vatican collaborated with national socialism is proof of a biased view. One might as well post a Soviet delegate with Hitler, or the Von Ribbentrop pact to "prove" Stalin was pro-Hitler. Which would be ridiculous. This article is highly biased and has an amateurical outlook, not an historical style at least. Smith2006 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your posts on this talk civil and refrain from making rambling diatribes about how this is the worst article you have ever seen. It is a featured article now, which means that a consensus of diverse Wikipedians decided that it was adequately neutral and cited reliable sources. Please limit your posts on this talk page to specific problems with the article—the only ones that I can discern from your previous post is that you are unhappy with the two pictures in the World War II and Holocaust sections. The one in the World War II section makes no such insinuations, but rather shows Pius's representitive to Germany meeting with Germany's head of state. No matter one's opinion on what the nature was of this diplomatic relationship was, we can all agree it was an important one. If his papacy was dominated by relations with Zululand instead of World War II, a picture of his representative to Zululand would be used. As you can see above on this talk, the caption reached a consensus NPOV version. As for the second image, you are correct that the artist of the image has a POV, but the picture is presented here in a NPOV way, illustrating a major viewpoint. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User Savidan, any kind of criticism receives just this general kind of answer of yours, that one can read now in any kind of discussion on this page again and again. Please don't hide always behind the NPOV-button, which I indeed would not have supported and which indeed could be taken away from this page again, too. I believe Smith2006 has been specific enough. Why not take the effort to answer him?

There are no defendig parts, although they have been stated with reliable sources. Please give reasons, why not. Please don't say, that there are no sources, since there are a lot.

The drawn picture showing a cardinal and a nazi making some kind of collaboration does not belong here, really. This opinion may have been stated by some people, but this opinion is subjective and not objective, as the picture proves. This page should refrain from deliberately whiping up anti catholic sentiments. The catholics are not the nazis, and the nazis have been responsible for the holocaust, not the catholics. The picture suggests the opposite. Your way of discussion avoiding any kind of statement concerning the cause itself is not very helpful here. I give 24 hours to remove the picture, or I will file a complaint to people in charge. I am really sorry to have to take measures like this, but you leave no other choice.

Why is it necessary to retell the story of the holocaust in specifically this article? I would take the chance to point to your standard - answer to please link to a sub - article... :-)

You tell smith2006 to keep up a certain standard of discussion, but take a look at yours in the history.

The article should mention that by late 1942 some 2.000 priests, nuns and monks had been killed by the nazis, among them 5 bishops (!) which the nazis would do nowhere else. The source for this is Pierre Blet, Pius XII and the Second World War, according to the Archives of the Vatican", published in french 1997, in german 2001. At the beginning of 1943, Pius had no contact anymore to his bishops and priests in Poland. Whatever speech he would have delivered, it could not have reached the people in Poland.

The article should mention that it took a great deal of effort for the polish bishops to persuade Pius XII. to take stand against the newer atrocities in Poland 1942. Pierre Blet, Pius XII and the Second World War, according to the Archives of the Vatican", published in french 1997, in german 2001. Pius XII finally took stand against it in the official paper of the vatican "Acta santa sede". The main motive for his delayed reaction was, as Pius said himself, that he did not want to destroy even the very remains of catholic life in Poland by some undiplomatic action.

Pope Pius XII publicly declared after the war, in 1952, that he had done everything he thought possible to avoid and to shorten the war, to alleviate suffering and to reduce the number of victims. Blet affirms: "As far as documents can penetrate hearts, they (the ADSS) lead to the same conclusion". Pierre Blet, Pius XII and the Second World War, according to the Archives of the Vatican", published in french 1997, in german 2001.

Since the article follows a cronological order, it is not clear to me why there is a reason to split up the holocaust and wwII in two separate sections. UAltmann 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should contain no defending or attacking parts, just the facts stated in as neutral a way as possible. I apologize, but I shall continue to "hide behind the NPOV-button," as it is probably the single most important component of this encyclopedia. As for the Holocaust and WWII sections, I have tried as much as possible to only make those sections discuss the parts of the war that specifically relate to Pius. If you want proof that going off topic too much for "context" can make the text bloated, take a look in the history at the bizzare IP who has inserted the entire history of Croatia into this article about 40 times over the past two years. As for splitting up the WWII and Holocaust sections, I think it really makes sense in light of this topic given that every writer (no matter how you would classify them!) has given a special attention to Pius's actions appertaining to the Holocaust. The article is not strictly in a chronological order either, only a chronological one within sections. Of the three things that you want to add from Blet's book, the first seems to have nothing to do with Pius himself (remember, this is a biography), the second seems relevant, and the third is possibly fine, but it's not clear to me what you mean specifically by "delcared publicly" (on the radio? tv? newspaper? you get the idea). Do you have the page numbers for these? You can add them yourself provided they are stated in a NPOV way and cited. Feel free to "file a complaint" about the picture, but perhaps you would prefer to discuss here why you want to remove an image that is very well known in the context of Pope Pius XII, appearing on the cover of one of the first (and still one of the most thorough) archival books. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This picture of the cardinal and the nazi I find really attacking and offending. Please keep to your own standards: if you say that this article should not contain attacking parts and at the same time you can't find this picture attacking, then I don't know what attacking is.

I don't mean to go off topic. I just say that describing certain facts with just one sentence necessarily leads to context lacking. Two more sentences - at the most - to briefly describe the background should be enough but also required.

The first thing from Blet has to do with Pius, since due to the crimes of the nazis committed among the polish clergymen and -women Pius was simply unable to keep a contact to the Polish Church. Nowadays in times of email and so on this might well be unimaginable, but I find it worth mentioning, that there were facts, that limited Pius' ability to act.

Is it important whether he said it on tv or in the newspaper, since I named a verifiable source?

I do not have the page numbers here. Since there does not seem to be an english edition of this book, which page numbers should I take? Those of the french edition or the german one ? UAltmann 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing "attacking" about showing a picture of Pacelli's representative to Germany. Pacelli's diplomacy towards Germany is an important part of this article and the caption is from a neutral point of view. I don't see what could be construed as an "attack" by this image. By these standards, we should rewrite the article to exclude all mention of the Nazis. You'll have to be more specific parts of the article you think are lacking in context. Keep in mind that this is a biography and not the place to rewrite the entire history of the world during Pius's lifetime. In that vein, information that is germane to the Catholic Church during the time period is not relevant unless the connection to Pius makes it notable.

The first thing that you were proposing was a figure of how many catholics had been killed by the nazis in one country up to a certain time period. Such information would be relevant to an article on the catholic church during WWII (which I think should exist, but no one has gotten around to creating) but is not especially relevant here. Why is that figure in particular any more notable than the figure of the number of catholics killed in any given country by the Nazis at any time period? Are you saying that Blet makes the argument that Pius could not communicate with the Polish church because his chain of command was killed? That would be worthy of inclusion, but I would ask you to double check the source.

It's important to me, but if Blet doesn't specify further it will have to do. I'd just like to be as specific as possible on the date and the venue.

English sources are preferable, but if no english language source can be found you should cite the foreign language one using appropriate foreign language icon template at the start of the reference (e.g. {{de_icon}}). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from (closed) FAC

— added the numbering for readability. The rest of the text is UAltmann.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1. Many facts are lacking context, since they are described with just one sentence. I.e. "On October 28, 1943, Weizsacker, the German Ambassador to the Vatican, telegrammed Berlin that the pope "has not allowed himself to be carried away [into] making any demonstrative statements against the deportation of the Jews."" There is a story behind this fact. It was Weizsäcker's aim to appease Berlin not to invade the vatican. Pius overwhelmed him with protests, Weizsäcker again warned Pius that provoking Berlin could have the contrary effect. Thus, Pius did not repeat the protests publicly and Weizsäcker did not deliver them to the government, but on the contrary appeased Berlin. Source: Pinchas Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews, who is not quoted one single time in this article, whereas he has rendered the earliest (1967) and most thorough research on this matter.
2. Another example: When mentioning the Reichskonkordat, it should be mentioned that the german "kulturkampf" of the Bismack era lead to the vatican's desire of making a concordate. Furthermore, the concordate should promote international diplomatic reputation of the young vatican state. Without these facts, the whole Idea about the concordate is completely turned upside-down.
3. When mentioning the circumstances of passing the enabling act, please don't forget to mention that the SPD members could not cast their votes because they were all arrested the night before (Göring was the chief of police in Prussia and there was no immunity of representatives). If the SPD members (among them also catholics) would have attended, the enabling act would not have been passed. That much to Pius and his alleged influence on the enabling act. UAltmann 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The notion that Weizsacker was a double agent etc. is an interpretation of Lapide's, not an indisputed historical fact, nor one that has gained much traction among historians in the half-century following the publications of Lapide's book. I addressed this same comment earlier on this talk page. Never the less, this could be included if attributed to Lapide. Once again your reference is incomplete and out of print. I will try to track down the page numbers for you if you cannot.

2. The "kulturkampf" would be relevant in the Reichskonkordat article but has nothing to with Pacelli at all. People will have to read the Reichskonkordat article (which is linked prominently) themselves if they want to get the full significance of the treaty. Only Pacelli's role is discussed in his biography. The significance of concordats to the vatican is discussed earler in this article. (and by the way, there was nothing young about the Vatican during Pacelli's tenure as Secretary of State).

3. Ditto for these hyperspecific details about the Enabling Act which have nothing to do with Pacelli. Seriously, that's why Wikipedia has the internal linking feature. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Black Nobility and Friend to Birds

Two issues:

1. I have reverted introduction of the term "Black Nobility" into the text. I have retained the link to the article of that name, while reinserting the former wording, which is more clear to the average reader. The only concern (except for maybe the given sources over there) is whether BN is an established English term. If not, Black Aristocracy seems better.

2. "His gentle character and apparent rapport with animals in his old age have been cited as evidence of his sanctity; for example, some photographs show him tenderly holding wild birds on his finger." - this certainly was in the wrong spot, but I thought that it might be includable elsewhere, if a reference is supplied. For this aim, fact tags have been used in the past.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect, the term "Black Aristocracy" (although it appears more literal at first glance) is not the preferred term at all. If you are further interested in the use of the term, use Google Books to follow up on the references I provided in the other article. I made a minor change here that I think you will be ok with. As for the picture of the bird, I uploaded it and it is still on Wikipedia. However, after thinking about it for a while I deamed it relatively trivial and unencyclopedic. If it was cited as evidence of his sanctity by Pope John Paul II it would be notable. And if we include reference to it, I also think its kind of interesting that Sister Pasqualina took the birds with her when she got kicked out of the Vatican by Tisserant. There is no need to insert it with a fact tag. I think the best way to do this would be to look over JPII's speech when he declared Pius venerable and see if he made reference to his love of animals. If so, I think the entire thing can be discussed in the caption. The "Later life, death, and legacy" section would really be the most appropriate for this, if that is the case, and I think I could make both images fit with some clever formatting. However, I think we should hold off until until there is evidence. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I esentially agree about the bird. It just went to quickly for my taste. I agree it's more of a trivia information.

No prob about the BN term, if it is established in English.

I made another tweak at the BN link, as I think we cannot use it to descríbe this heritage. The term will not tell readers much without following the link. However, we can - and I have - added it in brackets.

As for the books over there: How are the fiction books related to the article's content (as you indicate page numbers)? An encyclopedic article shouldn't be based on fiction.

I am still trying to find out about the Hatonn book. Maybe you could give a quick hint. (I hope it hasn't anything to do with [www.phoenixarchives.com/contact/1997/1097/100797.pdf this] (that was the only result when I googled author and book title) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why use the term "so-called"? Quotation marks would serve that purpose more efficiently, but the larger issue is why we have to indicate disapproval of the term when there is none in the literature. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything with the "so-called" and I loath that expression myself, but I think here it is appropriate, as this is no official term but a label pinned at these families. Also note, so called is not necessarily disapprovement but can also be mere distancing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So-called is generally used for disputed terms rather than uncommon ones. For example, a paper in a geography journal may refer to the "so-called phenomenon of overpopulation", but no one would say "so-called Bedhaya dancers" even though virtually no one knows what that is. I'll get back to you on the books in a second. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hantonn book is hisotrical fiction, and the page that I cited talks about the dude who founded Fiat and other Black Nobility families. That part of the book isn't fiction at all. Only marginally useful, but still useful I would say, especially for a little-used term. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Google Book Searching on Hatonn doesn't reveal very encouraging results: Antichrist, Demons in the Kremlin etc. Please no crackpot stuff as sources. (written before edit conflict)

(after:) then it should be put into the fiction section. You should have done this but I will do so now. Ehem, crackpot remains crackpot and even more so, if the subject is rather little discussed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your most recent version is good enough for me. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Marked Change in Bias

I just wanted to note that the last time I read this article, about five months ago, it had an extremely different viewpoint on Pius and the Holocaust, leaving me with the strong impression that he was a strong and principled defender of European Jews. There was an anecdote about him personally gathering money to pay off the Reich so that the Roman Jews would remain safe. I was stunned to see the changes here, and was so surprised that I nearly checked it was talking about the right pope. This very sudden and marked change in viewpoint makes me suspicious that the article does not conform to NPOV policy and I think, given that the Holocaust section is not terribly long as is (and it is the key controversy in his life) perhaps some more information should be provided. The phrasing of some of that section also makes me suspicious of a biased editor; particularly in that it lists a caveat for nearly every pro-Jewish action he took. He saved 6 thousand Jews but! said the Church didn't support Zionism. He got many people emergency passports but! they weren't honored just on his authority. I hope this seems like a reasonable concern. Windupcanary

I can't act on your comments without something specific that needs to be added or a wording that needs to be changed. The anecdote about delivering money, for example, could not be verfied by any published source and thus was removed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement of Windupcanary I consider to be exact enough. As you read the whole discussion page, you should note that specific criticisms are stated over and over again by different users. You may take consequence or leave it, but don't tell people repeating like a litany, that they are not specific enough. This is really a despective behavior of yours.

How do you justify that there is a substantial change in Bias? UAltmann 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep the tone of discussion respectful. I was merely pointing out in my last post that although Windupcanary has a right to voice his/her opinion, if they would like to propose changes in the article, posts of that type are not good enough. Unless I am very much mistaken, Windupcanary is referring approximately to this version of the article. I think it is indisputable that the article has improved since then. However, its more than possible that it could continue to improve. The edit tab is still enabled, I believe. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope

Shouldn't this section contain the author's most recent thought's on the subject, especially when they 'retract' much of his initial argument?

| "Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, “Hitler's Pope” (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now argue,” he says, “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 the Germans.”"

--GuyIncognito 06:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the last section of that paragraph. Good luck! --Oldak Quill 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its relevant to an article which is first and foremost a biography of Pius. These back and forths between critics and defenders should only be included when they affect his actual biography, not when they are just idosyncracies, like a defender complaining about a critics cover, or the evolution of their positions. Put it in the Hitler's Pope article if you want. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Cornwell has essentially retracted his allegation. Is that not relevant to Pius, when the allegation itself related to Pius? The most up to date presentation of Cornwell's view is contained in the article, not in his earlier book. Yet only his earlier view as expressed in the book is presented. I think you should re-read the article as it does not relate to an "idiosyncracy" nor to a critic or defender, but to Cornwell himself.

--GuyIncognito 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Its clearly a borderline case of whether this is notable, and looking at it again I think it could merit a breif mention. Kind of like how Roe is a anti-abortion now. However, that quote above doesn't look like a complete retraction. Saying "impossible to judge" is kinda a cop-out; it doesn't indicate that he's flipped sides, only that he's tempered his view. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Cornwell gave a more ambiguous assessment in a 2004 interview (cite reference) where he stated "Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war"?

--GuyIncognito 11:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That'd be fine by me. Put the reference at the end of the quote though. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Article has huge POV problems

"Pope Pius XII (Latin: Pius PP. XII), born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (March 2, 1876 – October 9, 1958), reigned as the 260th pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and sovereign of Vatican City State from March 2, 1939 until his death. His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and the Holocaust remains the subject of continued historical controversy. Before his election as pope, Pacelli served as a priest, monsignor, papal nuncio, cardinal, cardinal secretary of state, and camerlengo in which roles he worked to conclude treaties with other nations, most notably the Reichskonkordat with Germany. After World War II, he was a vocal supporter of amnesty for war criminals and a staunch opponent of communism."

This introduction is nothing but POV. The first thing mentioned is "His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and the Holocaust remains the subject of continued historical controversy", this seems to be the result of Jewish Anti-Catholic POV pushing. Such a sentence is completely inappropriate as the first content sentence in an article about a pope.

"Controvery" is a way of soft-pedalling his role. He led a Catholic country whose Catholicis and others committed the most horrible crimes in the history of man. When we look and ask how could this have happened, the first question is where was there moral compass. Then we see the Catholic prelate had signed an agreement with the Nazi regime. The doctrine of Nazism was known at the time of the agreement, for Hitler had already written and printed Mein Kamph. Indeed, he took some themes from the bible.

Harmony between the Church and the Nazi Regime.

The Jews had betrayed Jesus leading him to be tortured and killed, just as the Jews betrayed Germany. Jews preoccupation with money was condemned by Jesus as he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and he was sold out by Judas, just as the Jews sold out Germany. The vision a Christian society was shared by the Nazi regime and Christians. Now no one today would compare the two. However, it was up to Pius to point out the differences. Instead, he let German Catholics be Nazis, and those in other countries too. In Nazi Germany, you could attend Nazi Party rallies, send your children to Nazi camps, and on Sundays go to church and perceive no contradiction between the two.

Nazis even went on to define who was a Christian and Jew. One who worshipped as a Christian, and took communion remained a Jew in the eyes of German law if one parent was a Jew, but few Christians would help him avoid persecution, as the Jewish commuity was decimated. How do you not hold Pius partly responsible. Hold others responsible too, condemn that also, but please do not expect anyone to buy this "he was helping the Jews behind the scenes." HE WAS THE LEADER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IF HE SAID DON'T KILL THE JEWS, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN KILLED. (hopey 5000)

Also, "he was a vocal supporter of amnesty for war criminals", is nothing but POV. Firstly, it's untrue, secondly, it describes people as "criminals" which is POV, it has to be "alleged war criminals". It would be better to say "amnesty for persecuted war participants" which better reflect the intention of the Holy Father. It's well known that many war participants from the Axis countries were persecuted by the Stalinists and their accomplishes (often civilians were sent to Stalinist concentration camps like the Polish Zgoda concentration camp), while Stalinist criminals or British or American criminals were not punished at all.

What rubbish. The only POV on this page is the addition of the unreferenced sections "Excellent Conduct" and "Pope Saves Over 500,000 Jews". I'd remove the tag but feel that it is deserved for the vandalism inflicted on this article (in the name of glorifying a dead pope) in the past day. Its been featured for less than a day and has already been butchered. GreatGodOm 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that there is anything wrong with the intro. War criminals are war criminals, not "persecuted war participants". This is PC gone crazy. Calling a spade a spade is not to contravene Wikipedia's NPOV policy! EuroSong ^talk 13:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII did support amnesty for war criminals. You'll see that this is consistent with the Catholic Church's positions on forgiveness. He didn't use any euphemisms and so I don't think this article has to. Agree with Eurosong. Please don't make major changes to the intro without first obtaining talk page consensus. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But the question is: Did he support "amnesty for war criminals" or did he advocate a policy of leniency towards the vanquished nations to avoid a reprise of what happened after World War I? This may boil down to the same thing but still, the current version is (not surprisingly I might add) the most ill-meaning of possible interpretations. BTW, I don't think that the Cahtolic position on forgiveness can be equated with amnesty. Catholic theology holds that though God forgives our sins (and so saves us from eternal damnation) we still have to do reparation and satisfaction on earth. So a murderer must still be punished. I, as a Catholic, am definitely opposed to all sorts of amnesties. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect, its irrelevant what other catholics were advocating. He was an advocate of amnesty. He litterally asked for blanket pardons of war criminals. And he wasn't embarrased about this and nor would I be. There is no need to whitewash this history. This generic theology about amenesty could be discussed in an amnesty article but isnt relevant in this biography because its nothing new with Pius. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't ask for my take on this to be included into the article. It was just a side note. However, regarding what Pius actually advocated I stand by what I wrote above. The wording currently in the intro is certainly unacceptable, in relation to what it says further down. (the "Blanket pardon" is referring to death sentences, so we could also make Pius a herald of opposition to capital punishment). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly don't agree with what the poster above wrote, the article (not the intro) has indeed POV problems. And they are not what GGO pointed at. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 'excellent conduct' and 'Pope saves over 500,000 jews' sections: they had no references. Actually many of the claims in those sections, and the list of quotes etc., were in the article a few months ago. The quotes (an escalating list both pro and anti Pius) were moved to wikiquote, where they belonged. Claims for which no one could find a source - and there was plenty of discussion and time for people to find references - were removed. The page went from being an entirely unreferenced POV battleground to a well sourced article deserving of featured article status. I ask everyone not to undo months of discussion and work by adding in unsourced claims. Please look for references before you add in controversial information.

I removed the NPOV tag because I couldn't see any real discussion as to why it was added, other than the unsigned apologia for war criminals above. There has been endless discussion on this article, in which defenders of Pius have played an active role. If people new to the article have specific complaints then let's discuss them - though it would save us a lot of repetition if people read the archives first.Bengalski 13:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you beat me to it, it was just a bad faith attempt by an "anonymous" user to retroactively bias up this article once it was on the main page. All such major changes to the text should be discussed on the talk page first and consensus should be reached before they are added. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Actually many of the claims in those sections, and the list of quotes etc., were in the article a few months ago."

While there should be references, this still is valid info and the removal of it part of the turning a once balanced article in a one-sided POV article. Hence the POV tag is justified and I will repost it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As we know from Wikipedia:Verifiability, sourcing claims is mandatory - the policy is that unreferenced stuff can be removed on sight, let alone after lengthy discussion. In any case, the fact that no no one could find a reference for the '500,000 jews saved' etc. after many months suggests to me that these claims are not 'valid info'.Bengalski 14:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Dalin's book credit Pius with saving several hundred thousand Jews? Didn't anybody reference it?--Chris 14:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This information already exist in the contemporary section. Dalin is just quoting Lapide. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I expected this from others but not from you. You know that it is on par with vandalism to insert large swathes of unsourced text into the article featured on the main page. That was a largely biased edit. Do not simply reinsert it. We should discuss the changes specifically on the talk page and obtain consensus before reinserting them. There is a much higher standard for inserting NPOV tags into the featured article on the main page as well. There is a large consensus among wikipedia editors that this article was neutral, and thus one person shouldnt be able to deface it with a unilateral tag. I'm not that familiar with the book in question that you were trying to remove as "hate literature" but I think its a better policy not to censor literature from the works cited. If its a relevant book, it should be there, within reason. Even if this rubbish that you are adding is from an old version of the article, they aren't from any version of the article that got featured, and thus should not be reinserted without a new consensus. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What !? What have I done? Where have I "insert(ed) large swathes of unsourced text". That was someone else. This was my edit (with a signature blunder: [4]. I only commented here on the whole situation.

Regarding the fact that the article is on the front page:

• That's an unfortunate fact that such a one-sided article is put there.
• I didn't know until your revert that it was there.
• I didn't know that there were special rules (are there?) for such article. I don't think there should be, but I digress.

Regarding Deschner, he really is unacceptable, see my explantion below (posted in edit conflict). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as you don't readd the text its fine. But don't insert a NPOV tag just because the text was removed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Book removal and more

I'll give you a place here to explain yourself before exacerbating the reverts. Why are you removing this source as hate literature? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Appalling, I must say ...

• it is that this version has even made it to "featured" status, quite without a real discussion, I might add.
• that this is used to disregard real NPOV concerns
• that hate literatur is considered for the references. Whoever added it certainly reveals his bias. Including Deschner on the Church is like including Goebbels on the Jews. This cannot be about "censoring" sources (actually I have seen a lot of censoring on this page, even today, only in the other direction) as Deschner is not a source for anything. You use him in a term paper at university and you will not get a grade for this.

To sum up, the POV tag migh wait, until the pretext used here is gone, but using Deschner is unacceptable under any circumstances. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (posted before edit-conflict)

I'm willing to hold off on keeping Deschner out of the references section until there is consensus for it here because you are right in saying that it was added recently. I am not saying that the featured article on the main page is not supposed to be edited just that it is irresponsible to try to impose large changes on them without consensus. If you wish to discuss additions individually and find sources for them, other users may deem them acceptable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't know that there were special rules and I will abide with them, even if I don't agree.

Deschner has a record of writing countless book, all of them with the theme: Christianity, most notably the RCC but with the occasional switch at Protestants and Jews, is the bane of humanity, and should be done away with. He really is a maniac. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

One second you say you'll abide, the next you are making new changes without consensus. Please try discussing things first. Maybe you'll like it. Anyway, I wasn't the one who added it, and I tend to agree with you, so I agree it should remain out unless someone can justify otherwise. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the charge that the article is POV. The "Pius Wars" have been going on for years among pro- and anti-Pius historians. You'd hardly know here. It seems very much a reiteration of the anti-Pius side. Now whether this is unconscious editorial bias, the actions of coterie of anti-Pius types, or simply laziness/disorganization among the pro-Pius types, I don't know, but certainly it could use improvement. I don't think it was ready for FA status.--66.183.165.57 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC), also known as --Chris 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please register and contribute, if you will. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't logged in.--Chris 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro changes

Once again, you disgregard process. The intro in question was discussed specifically and word by word because it was going to appear on the main page and it got approved. Please do not unilaterally change it (or make other major changes) without acquiring consensus first. Your changes to the post-WWII are not a NPOV edit but just a euphemism which is not an accurate picture of history. The list of offices is useful for showing his path throught the ranks. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had to do some changes to the intro:

• the long list of offices and titles is really not needed in an intro. I have stripped it down to priest (though he later was a bishop) and diplomat, of which the highest was the office secretary of state.
• Why is the German concordat singled out as "most notable"? I think I am smelling something.
• As I stated above, the advocate for amnesty of war criminals is not a proper way to represent even what the article says further down.

I hope you will understand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (in edit conflict)

I don't understand, and I disagree. His elevation through the ranks is notable. The Reichskonkordat is the most notable, by far the most discussed and the most noted for its effect on history. He literally did even use the word amnesty so there is no reason for you to remove it. Once again, it is shameless for you to try to do this over and over again. Have you no respect for anyone else's work on the article except for your own? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the current intro is a sign of malvolency beyond compare. Also, though repeated many times, WP doesn't work on a "get consensus and then edit" process.

Seondly, I can't see where this was discussed. The only discussion I can see is about the "leadership remains controversial" sentence, which I approve of. There's no denying that there's controversy, even if it is created by anti-Catholic bigots like Hochhuth. (written before edit conflict)

Now, in reply to you last post:

• His elevation through the ranks is notable (but why is the episcopacy, the most central of church offices left out?) but not suitable for the intro. It should be told, step by step, in the main text.
• The Reichskonkordat is certainly important but must it (and only this concordat) be included in the intro. (I must add that this is certainly my weakest objection).
• "He literally did even use the word amnesty so there is no reason for you to remove it."

Hallo, are you serious? I didn't remove it. It is included in its proper place. Pius said and did a lot of things and some of these are removed from the article alltogether. The intro cannot contain everything and should in itself not be POV-pushing. The current version is.

As for "euphemism": No it's not. It is a representation of Pius' stance after the war - his whole stance and not just one element of it raised to undue prominence.

I have respect for others work but I don't have respect for biased POV-pushing, which IMHO seems to be the case here, since other articles drew my attention elsewhere. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a biography article, not just a summary of his papacy. Thus the intro should be a little more complete that that. You will notice that the list was already incomplete—just the highlights. Yes, RK should be in intro, its like mentioning Dante without his Inferno. Feel free to open up a FARC if you wish, that would be preferable to you continually trying to ignore consensus and hijack the text. As for your summary of his post-war activities, its full of flourishes like adjectives designed to try to add euphemism, and thus would not stand up to talk page discussion if you try to explain why its more NPOV. Now we are getting somewhere: "undue prominence"--you disagree with which elements of it have been made more notable by history. Thats my point. Amnesty was obviously the most notable of his activities after the war. You have yet to do so. seriously. Just show both the current version and your proposed version here and lets discuss it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. This is a bio article - not a "all bio in the intro". We don't have, say, articles of military people including all their ranks in the intro, do we? Why should it be different here.

Your version decontextualizes the amnesty call in the intro. Again, the amnesty thing is valid info and should be included but why in the intro? You say that it was "obviously the most notable of his activities after the war" and you are entitled to that view, but you are not entitled to shove it down everyone else's throat. I say, most notable after the war were his attempts at rebuidling Europe, which includes his adovacy for leniency, which in turn includes his advocacy of an amnesty. (Not touching upon the question where former wordings of the intro have gone into).

Currently, the intro seems to be a collection of issues that are bent on making the Pope look bad in certain eyes (even if you say you agree with leniency stance): he made concordat with Hitler, then he wanted amnesty for war criminals and also was anti-Communist (some people, for mysterious reasons, actually think such a stance a bad thing). Is there anything positive in the intro? Even the infallible definition is sort of a minus in most eyes. Now, don't tell me that the facts demand the intro to be so negative. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem: you think that he advocated lenient policies towards vanquished nations as well as amnesty. Solution: mention both. Ammenable? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I think that the amnesty is an element of a larger stance, that of leniency. If both are included they should be in reversed order (though it is still undue prominence).

And again, you include "most notably". I won't change that for the moment.

However, let me point your attention to one more thing: "treaties with other nations" - but the Holy See is not a nation, so "other" is wrong; also "nations" would not include Bavaria, Baden and Prussia, with which he has negotiated concordats as well. Finally are there any other treaties except the concordats? If not, why not use "concordats".

Finally, I guess there's no reasoning today as long as this "thing" here is on the front page, so maybe I should postpone it until tomorrow. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try not to misrepresent the chronology on this page by messing up the order of the posts. This just makes it harder to read for everyone. Which specifically of his promotions do you think should not be included. Only those notable enough to be in the section headings are there now. If you read the Wikipedia: Introduction page (whatever its called) it says something about "prepare the reader for the detail that comes" which generally means at least a shout out to each section. As you point out, its silly to classify things as positive and negative. Really we should just take a "notable point of view" as list the things that are the most notable. Being one of the sole proponents of amnesty made him notable. I don't think this is even something most historians look back on him negatively for (although some contemporary US generals did). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: edit-conflicts mess things up. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to remove cardinal, but I think the others are notable promotions. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Priest, monsignor and cardinal could all go I think - all modern popes have been these, so it's hardly notable.Bengalski 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I must say: it is not about are these promotions "notable" but are they "notable enough for the intro".

Monsignore is certainly the least notable. To mention his priesthood raises the question of why not mentioning his episcopacy (which is, at the risk of repeating myself, the most central of all offices and elevations). My first intention was to include the strictly ecclestiastical and the diplomatic part. However, we may also focus on the diplomatic part and merely include nuncio and cardinal secretary of state. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If thats the way we want to go we should remove priest and monsignor (cardinal is already removed) and add Secretary of the Department of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. I like Bengalski's reasoning that we should only mention what isnt already implied by saying he was pope. I'm fine with reversing the order of amnesty and leniency. I also think that "other nations" could just be "European nations" although I don't quite agree with you that the See isnt a nation. How's the current version? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only objection is stylistic, that the "secretary of the Department of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs" is rather bloating. A possible solution would be to use more vague language about Holy See diplomatic services including Nuncio and Secretary of State.

Regarding leniency and amnesty I also would prefer to have "leniency ... including ... amnesty" to make the larger and specific levels clearer (not that I yield my original point).

I can't see how the Holy See can be described as a Nation. It is an entity of the law of nations, yes, even before the Vatican City was founded, but hardly a nation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, the current intro avoids the quesetion of whether the Holy See was a nation entirely. I think that a better standard than "style" for what positions to list would be to only list those that are not already implied when we say he was pope. Once you know someone is pope, you know that they were previously a priest...cardinal. However, you don't necessarily know that they were the secretary of the "Vatican's foreign office" (which is what that should be called if we want to abbreviate it), a nuncio, card. secretary of state, or camerlengo. The "including" constrution would not be syntactically correct because leniency toward nations does not include amnesty for individuals. "and" works better in this case. They are related but not, as I have explained below, inclusive of one another. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good if we can avoid such issues like the Holy See's nationhood.

I wouldn't include the Camerlengo (into the intro), as it is a largely ceremonial position.

Regarding the amnesty issue, I respond below. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding to your other questions above:

• The reasoning with the headers seems sensible, but this would return the state to the whole list (including the unnotable (for our readers) Monsignore. Again, I'd say either priest, bishop and diplomat, or nuncio and secretary of state. The latter has the advantage of being his actual "workplaces".
• It might be silly to distinguish between positive and negative but one gets the impression that someone involved in the writing of the intro has indeed done this (also taking into account the removals from the former version). Silly things do happen! And what's silly to some is malvolent to others.
• Also, may I point you to a lapse of logic: you say he was "one of the sole proponents of amnesty" - how many were there? was he "sole" or "one of some"? I certainly don't believe that he was the only one. But this all introduces a non-sequitur (that the low number of amnesty advocates makes his support the most notable thing he has done post-war) and avoids the actual question of the includability (in the intro) of that issue. The "lenience" is much more notable, the amnesty merely an element.
• "I don't think this is even something most historians look back on him negatively" - sorry, but this is a perfect example of pushing something negative. After all, we are talking about war criminals (in times when allegedly present war criminals have been used to block some nations entry into the EU, while others may kill and torture at will - but I digress. Basically, we are not living in times of mercy and forgiveness, but in times of redifing good and bad.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Policies of leniency is not entirely inclusive of amnesty. For example, he supported leniency even before WWII because he was of the mind (as were many) that the post-WWI treaties had been too harsh on Germany and had not laid the foundation for lasting peace. Amnesty for war criminals was a new advocacy post-WWII specifically in reaction to the Nuremberg trials (not that i think those have to be linked in the intro) and he really devoted a lot of time for advocacy of amnesty for individuals which is fundamentally distinct from leniency at the scale of entire nations. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, his amnesty policy was an element of his leniency policy. And it is, quite frankly, irrelevant when he developed which policy as he could see at least since 1943 where the war was going and since 1920 what the set backs of the post-WWI policies were (which included a silly (IMHO) demand to "Hang the Kaiser" for war crimes). The fact (if it is so) that amnesty issue was "a new advocacy post-WWII" doesn't make it notable for the intro nor does it make it any less an element of a pre-existing leniency policy. If no one tries to put war criminals on trial, no one needs to advocate amnesty. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are right about this, that would justify the "including" construction, but still not justify removing this from the intro entirely. When so much of his post-war papacy was devoted to this issue (and not just to leniency in general—he spent a lot of time and energy on the amnesty issue specifically) its hard to imagine not including it. Since clearly this is a contentious issue, I think the current construction which avoids the question for the most part (it doesnt rule out that these issues were closely connected) is safe. As for removing Camerlengo, why does it matter if its ceremonial in theory, the fact that he was camerlengo gave him enormous influence in Pius XI's later papacy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't want to "not include it" in the article but only in the intro.

About the camerlengo, I am afraid you are wrong. He had influence because of his being Secretary of State, just as B16 had influence as head of the CDF and not as Cardinal Dean. And an office cannot be "ceremonial in theory". Ceremonial is in fact - the theory is that the Camerlengo keeps the Pope's chamber in order - but because he doesn't, it is a ceremonial position. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: if all your points were valid, why does our article says something different? The relevant section doesn't speak like you do or like the intro does. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are spinning our wheels here. I am fine with your most recent changes up to this version and will not undo them. As valiant as your efforts are, you have already admitted that you want to white wash all the references to "war criminals" because you feel it to be of negative connotation, so its hard for me to take your rephrasing of this as a notability issue seriously. Every point that I have made above has been about the intro, not the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, do you really think it appropriate to insult me? I have repeatedly stated that I want to remove it from the intro, becaue there it has undue prominence. That's not white washing. That opposition to black washing, I must say, in which you were involved quite a bit. And all this without a checkable reference, I might add. So please reconsider your stance and your insulting words. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies—I mean no insult. I only meant to suggest a compromise version. It appears that we have the opposite instincts: I find controversial actions which have recieved a lot of play in the literature notable; I suppose you think that they have been overemphasized, which I agree with, but at the same time I don't think that that's our call to make as Wikipedia editors. If we have already agreed that his advocacy of leniency toward the vanquished parties in WWII belongs in the intro (have we?), then his advocacy of amnesty therein seems a logical counterpart. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. Apologies accepted. Please understand that I am bending over backwards trying to assume good faith and hence don't like being accused of White washing, as a dear currently deceased editor has constantly done. I agree that if (serious, scholarly) literature overemphasizes then it's not our call to correct their emphasis. Hence, my willingness to compromise on the Reichskonkordat in the intro. However, I don't think literature or scholarship requires us to downplay or delete or counter with many caveats the positive, while highlighting and repreating the negative. We have agreed, to answer your question, about leniency in the intro, but I don't understand why we need a counterpart. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I see what you meant about the weakness of the reference. I realize now that not everyone would have realized that CUA meant the Catholic University of America Archives. Now there is a reference to both the primary source and a secondary one. The war criminals issue is one of the biggest issues raised in the Rittner and Roth collection, which is widely viewed as one of the most neutral and authoritative collections (as a collaboration of articles from a wide array of writers). Is that better? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly better. Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, thanks for the heads up (though it didn't arrive in time). Though I agree with some of the sentiments of that anon, his way was no way to proceed and you were right to revert him.

Contentwise, to highlight Communists in some trials after the war is the same thing I decried with the amnesty angle in the intro in the first place, only going into the other direction. Some trials were indeed Communist show trials (such as the one of that Croatian bishop whose name currently eludes me) and this might be mentioned in the proper section, but certainly we shouldn't put generalizations into the intro.

Also, he was wrong to insert "Because of his leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II, the Pope is often attacked by Anti-Catholic groups." - this is wrong and actually self-contradiciting: he is attacked by anti-Catholics of different colours not for what he has done but for what he was: the Pope. Also, Dalin is right that some liberals within the Church portray him as a vice figure and John XXIII as the perfect Pope (because they, wrongly, assume him to have been a liberal). There all kinds of reasons for attacks, but the war record is merely the tool used by anti-Catholics, not the reason of the attacks.

Right now, I have just made two stylistic tweak regarding his anti-communist stance, one in the intro, one further down. Hope you don't mind.

Another question: what does "Archival works" in "Archival 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." mean? I don't have my notes at hand, but Zucotti's book was no mere documentation (if that is implied), which also would not fit well with such a "critical" stance. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to negotiate on the war criminals clause, but lets not jump the gun on the discussion. Let's discuss the new wording here and then change it. Attempts by Donnog to simply remove this information and counterproductive. Instead a new one should be proposed and compared. I certainly don't think "lenient policies towards vanquished nations" is an adequate summary of his advocacy by itself because most of what he did was aimed towards individuals, not nations. You may be onto something with this Croatian bishop—he's mentioned in the Lonely Cold War book that I'm reading right now. I agree that "anti-Catholic groups" is just wrong and inappropriate. I think its wrong to describe them as "attacks" as well. Really, we should leave the identity of his "critics" (as well as his "defenders") out of the intro entirely. Archival means that they had access to archives that previous books didn't, i.e. the Actes and the archives of indidividual nations which were opened up. Sanchez characterizes these works as "archival" in Understanding the Controversy for the same reason. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the nasty attacks on our beloved Holy Father can be motivated by anything else than the hatred for Catholicism. The attacks most often come from Jewish groups which are often Anti-Catholic. There is a rise of Anti-Catholicism in several countries and the continued attacks on Pius XII is a part of it. Attacking the Pope for not taking side in war is just absurd and a complete misunderstanding of the role of the Pope and of the Church. The Church does not declare war on peoples. The attacks on Pius XII needs to be mentioned in the context of Anti-Catholicism, because the view of Pius XII as bad is mostly promoted by such groups. Donnog 18:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo with Hitler in this article? Smells wrong. There is already a bunch of pictures whose only purpose is to associate the Holy Father with national socialism. Donnog 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hitlerspope.jpg definitely should be removed because the picture is historical falsification. It gives the false impression Pius XII is visiting Hitler, while he is actually visiting Paul von Hindenburg several years before the national socialist takeover. As such, the image has nothing with the title to do and is dishonestly abused. Donnog 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a catholic encyclopedia. Our articles are written from a neutral point of view, rather than a catholic point of view. Thus, we do not write from a point of view that assumes all critics of Pius are "anti-Catholic". This is entirely incorrect anyway, as most of them are catholics. Additionally, they aren't organized in "anti-Catholic groups". What's more than that, they don't "attack" him persay. A truly biased edit to the introdcution that you have repeatedly tried to do unilaterally. The picture of Orsenigo has also been discussed already and the consensus has been to keep it: the purpose of the picture is to show one of Pius's most notable (if not the most notable) ambassadors meeting with an important head of state. Critics and defenders of Pius tend to agree that this was an important ambassador, even if they analyze the effect of this relationship differently. The cover is not a falsification either as Cornwell does not claim that it is a picture of Pius visiting Hitler. It actually makes sense that the picture would be from Pacelli's nuncio days because almost the entire book (at least most of Cornwell's research) focuses on Pacelli's nunciature, in part because no later documents were available. It is discussed in the Hitler's Pope article and has no relevance to Pius's biography. Of all the criticisms of Hitler's Pope to include in this biography, you have chosen the one which is least relevant. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you really say neutral point of view? (laughter). UAltmann 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

Some comments:

• If pictures create problems that can only be dealt with by explanations that we cannot include for reasons of brevity, it is best to leave out the pictures in the first place. The HP cover seems to be such a one (and why would we need to include the cover of this book in particular). The photo with Cardinal Orsenigo is off-topic anyway (as there's no Pacelli in there). The Hirschberger picture should also be removed if it cannot be countered by an image of the contrary POV. You know, a picture leaves greater impressions than mere text, while not necessarily being more accurate.
• Secondly, I want to address some of the thing my (appearent) fellow Catholics have said: No doubt that the root cause for the defamation of Pius XII is hatred of Catholicism. But not every "critic" (this word is misused so much that we may as well go with the flow) is an anti-Catholic or does hate the Church. Especially, Jewish attackers are mostly ignorant of the true facts, or the context of Pius' actions. (That doesn't preclude that some of them then become anti-Catholic, e.g. the socilogist Daniel Goldhagen.) But please do not make such sweeping statement. For every "Jewish critic", you have also a "gentile critic" and a Jew praising Pius' conduct.
• Also, as I said before, anti-Catholics do not attack the Pope for his behaviour but for what he is and represents. And that there is controversy is unfortunately a fact. The question is, whether we should just says that there is controversy in the intro (for brevity's sake) or related more on his actions during the war.
• Finally, could Savidan (or whoever knows) explain to me the meaning of "archival works"? Otherwise I will delete it.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hitler's Pope cover I'm not married to, but at the same time I disagree that its so controversial that it needs to be explained in this article. Literally one online review complained about the cover, and as I have explained above, the cover does not claim that the cover is a picture of Pacelli visiting Hitler. Since the majority of Cornwell's criticism is based on the Reichskonkordat, a photo from this period of Pacelli's career is the opposite of disingenous. Second, there is nothing "off-topic" about the Orsenigo photo. Pius never met with Hitler; all of his interaction with Nazi Germany during his papacy were mediated through Orsenigo. As for the Hirshberger image, no one is objecting to adding another image; in fact, as the section has grown substantially under Brendanconway's edits, I would recommend another image. Perhaps you can provide one, str1977?

I think we are agreeing that since there is no stereotype that Pius's critics fit, a generic description of them does not belong in the intro. To me, the controversy is a "historical" one in that it persists because much of the information is either not yet released (due to the Vatican's 75 year rule) or will never be released. The real question is not how it came about, but why it has persisted for so long, which is why I think historical is more descriptive. He is certainly the most controversial 20th century pope (including the Vatican II popes), although I don't propose adding this to the intro.

I explained what "archival" means in my previous post (I don't blame you for finding this section unreadable!). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added three new images, all of which portray Pius XII is a positive light. I hope this will abate some of the griping. I would however point out that all of the current image locations make sense and would ask that if we add another image to the Holocaust section (I think we should) that it have something to do with the Holocaust. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I liked the one with his bird.Bengalski 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hirschberger image

7-10 July

File:TheConcordat.jpg

The Concordat by Fritz Hirschberger, a Holocaust survivor, illustrates the view that the Reichskonkordat made the church complicit in The Holocaust

I'd argue that the Hirschberger image -- a caricature of a Nazi soldier and Roman Catholic priest (cardinal?) standing on the corpse of a Jewish concentration-camp inmate -- is inappropriate, as it illustrates an untenable, extremist interpretation of Pius. The idea that a 1933 treaty regularizing church-state relations made the church "complicit" in the mass murders of Jews in 1941-45 stretches the meaning of "complicit" beyond any reasonable boundary. In other words, the verbal equivalent of this image would not be Wikipediable, at least not without some very strong distancing language - along the lines of "a few hate-filled nutters even assert that..." though more diplomatically phrased, of course :-) . If the import of the image in words would be unWikipediable, then the image is as well.

An alternative might be to re-write the caption to stress that this view not held by any serious student of the issue. This is a very second-rate solution, since as someone rightly pointed out, the impact of an image inheres mostly in the image itself, not in the caption.

Obviously, neither the Reichskonkordat nor the church's behaviour during the Holocaust are beyond criticism, but they are separate issues.--Chris 13:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been making the same point recently. Unless we can balance this picture (and I can't imagine how we could), I can't see this picture staying. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you against showing a piece of artwork which illustrates the main criticism of Pius. Feel free to add another image to "balance" it, although I have trouble accepting the premise that we should balace toward anything other than a NPOV. The consensus across Wikipedia has been than POV images can and should be displayed as long as they are presented in a NPOV manner (i.e. caption wording, germane location). For example, political cartoons. No one has even found a single other image that is relevant to the Holocaust section. We should be adding images to this section, not removing them. Rewriting the caption to say that only quacks hold this view would be incorrect, given that the literature "critical" of Pius generally comes from more scholarly sources than the literature "defending" Pius. Please remember that arguing against crticisms of Pius does not mean that they should not be presented. I don't think we should be adding original critical commentary about the image; instead, you should see if any published criticisms of the image exist. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that there is no other picture is enough to justify the inclusion of this. Why do we need a picture at all? BTW, no, this is not about the main criticism of Pius at all. That would be his alleged silence during the Holocaust. But do we actually know what Hirschberger wanted to say? Who is that Hirschberger anyway? Also, Savidan, I must disappoint you. The literature "critical" (rather inimical) to Pius doesn't come from "more scholarly sources" (whathever that is, sources are sources) at all. I only say: Hochhuth and Goldhagen. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We may have gotten off topic a little bit here. If you want to learn more about Hirshberger (who is relatively mainstream as Holocaust art goes), see this site. Anyway, the issue isn't whether the viewpoint of the image is wrong or whether the image itself has a POV (it does) but whether it is displayed in a POV way. I don't think the fact that you don't want to find another image justifies its removal. That's like saying that we should remove a sourced biographical fact because its unflattering and we can't find a published reubbtal. The image adds to the article by increasing the diversity of images and is relatively aescetically pleasing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm heading out for the weekend, and so can't really respond until Sunday or Monday, but just in summary: As commentary on the Concordat, the image is a blatant misrepresentation, and as commentary on the role of the Church during the Holocaust, the image is also a blatant misrepresentation... so what's it doing here? Being thematically connected to the topic of the section is not a sufficient justification.--Chris 19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The "accuracy" of the painting should be an irrelevant consideration as I have already explained. The faceless Cardinal in the image is almost certainly Pacelli (who was a Cardinal at the time of the signing and basically the architect of the Reichskonkordat). If that wasn't Hirshberger's intention, the image is still germane because its a notable depiction in the context of Pope Pius XII. For example, appearing on the cover of Phayer's book. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... we're very far from a meeting of minds here. The comment of yours I find the most interesting is: "I have trouble accepting the premise that we should balace toward anything other than a[n] NPOV." I take it that, for you, the NPOV position on Pius is necessary a critical position. My position -- and let me mention that I am neither Catholic nor conservative -- is that Pius is fundamentally controversial, and so NPOV means summarizing the controversy rather than evaluating the controversy and (largely) cancelling out what some editors see as the weaker side. To me, balancing the imagery in this section, either by removing the Hirschberger image or finding an equivalent pro-Pius image, moves the article towards NPOV. Opposition to such a balancing promotes the article's POV.

That said, I don't want to get into an interminable thread on these points. Let's see if there's some way we can cut to the chase.

You admit that the image is POV, but argue "The consensus across Wikipedia has been than POV images can and should be displayed as long as they are presented in a NPOV manner (i.e. caption wording, germane location). For example, political cartoons." Well, let's see a source for that. If you can document such an exemption, the appropriateness of the image can be subject to further discussion. If you can't, it has to go, by your own admission. Very simple.

I can certainly imagine contexts where a POV image is appropriate, but perhaps an article like this one - two vociferously opposed camps, an image strongly supporting one side - isn't that sort of context. Perhaps tolerance for such imagery is like tolerance for unsourced facts - it can survive with editorial consensus, but falls under a challenge. Any exemptions from NPOV must be very carefully argued; merely invoking a (supposed) principle is not enough. Failing a clear and convincing case for an exemption, the Hirschberger image should go, since, after all, there is no requirement for an image in this section; it's merely desirable to have some decoration.

Secondly, you argue that the image "illustrates the main criticism of Pius." I wonder if this is really tenable. The main criticism of Pius, as far as I can tell, is summarized in the phrase The Silence of the Pope. That is, he's accused of indifference, or moral cowardice, or a pre-occupation with defending the Church's position... in short, that he didn't rise to the occasion the way some heroic figures of the period did. However, there are other, more extreme criticisms. Joseph Bottum summarized a few of them in an article for First Things:

[T]he television program 60 Minutes insisted there was “absolutely” no difference between the writings of Pius and the writings of Hitler. Daniel Goldhagen called him a “Nazi collaborator” who “tacitly and sometimes materially aided in mass murder” [...]

Pacelli didn’t just accept Hitler; he loved the Nazi leader and agreed with him about everything. Did you know that shortly after World War I he gave the starving Adolf Hitler money because he so much approved the young man’s ideas? [...] [O]nly enduring belief in Nazi ideas can explain why Pius was the chief funder and organizer of the Ratline that helped hunted Gestapo agents escape to South America after Hitler’s defeat.

Regardless, the Pope was manifestly an anti-Semite of the first water—John Cornwell declared his views “of the kind that Julius Streicher would soon offer the German public in every issue of his notorious Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer” [...] In a 1997 essay, the widely published Richard L. Rubenstein concluded: “during World War II Pope Pius XII and the vast majority of European Christian leaders regarded the elimination of the Jews as no less beneficial than the destruction of Bolshevism.”

Now, the article doesn't articulate these views, and I assume you wouldn't argue that they are tenable. Yet, what position does Hirschberger's painting actually illustrate - the moderate silence-of-the-pope view, or the extremist pro-Nazi/exterminationist-anti-Semite view? Well, it's latter, obviously. So, in fact, it misrepresents the main criticism against Pius -- illustrating instead an untenable minority position.

Finally, Hirschberger's status as an artist and the use of his painting on the cover of Phayer's book are irrelevant, since neither artists nor publishers are subject to Wikipedia NPOV restrictions.--Chris 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris, I couldn't have said it better. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article quoted doesn't paint these as 'extremist', or 'untenable minority' views, but cites a list of 'mainstream' sources (even The Times - the very epitomy of mainstream) that have accused Pius of anti-semitism and collaboration with Nazism:

"All of these claims are mistaken, of course—and more than mistaken: demonstrably and obviously untrue, outrages upon history and fellow feeling for the humanity of previous generations. But none of them are merely the lurid fantasies of conspiracy-mongers huddled together in paranoia on their Internet lists. Every one of these assertions has been made in recent years by books and articles published with mainstream and popular American publishers."

As for Hirschberger, the message of his work doesn't seem to me extremist - I would agree with Savidan that his position on the holocaust is 'mainstream', and he is far from singling out Pius and the catholic church for blame. Other paintings in the series (see the link Savidan provided above) feature, with similarly stark imagery, eg. US jewish organisations, religious groups of all kinds (the Catholic priest without a mouth, the protestant minister with no ears, and the rabbi without eyes), or the world governments at the Evian conference. If you find the content and imagery of the painting extreme or distasteful, remember we are talking about the taking of millions of lives in the most brutal way possible. When we see photos of diplomats signing papers and shaking hands, let's remember what the paperclips add up to.

Yes I think his message is very 'mainstream': the holocaust was possible because of the indifference, silence - in other words, effective collusion, collaboration - of many. All those who helped the Nazis to power, or did not act to prevent them, share some of the guilt for millions of deaths. That includes those who signed the Reichskonkordat, as well as other appeasers. In another painting Hirschberger quotes this poem by Edward Yashinki: "Fear not your enemies, for they can only kill you. Fear not your friends, for they can only betray you. Fear only the indifferent, who permit the killers and betrayers to walk safely on earth."

It's not a comfortable message, but it's an important one. You don't have to think that Pius was 'wicked' or a 'pro-Nazi/exterminationist-anti-Semite' to think that he, like other world leaders and ordinary people of the time, bears responsibility for his actions with respect to Nazism.Bengalski 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, though I am not sure which of the Times you are referring to, to say that they reflect mainstream historical scholarship is sadly mistaken. If you are talking about the NYT, it is quite clear that it has an anti-Catholic bias - one of its publisher regards the RCC as evil, according to a recent interview. If the article doesn't paint these views as extreme, than that is the fault of the article and another indication of the recent worsening of its quality. These are indeed extreme views and Cornwell's "anti-semitism" claims have been thoroughly debunked (and the others quote by Chris are even worse, clearly sign of bigotry.)

Whether the Hirschberger image's message is extremist depends on what that message is. And what you, Ben, name is certainly not the "main criticism" of Pius (which is, as Chris notes, his alleged silence). The view that the Concordat put Hitler into power is based on Nazi propaganda and the wish to shift the blame to some one else.

Anyway, the image serves to highlight and push a certain POV and therefore it should be removed- Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I sympathize with your view, but I think you are deeply mistaken. Hirshberger's image in notable in the context of Pius, both appearing on the cover of one of the main books and because (after the whole "silence" thing) the Reichskonkordat is the basis for most of the criticism of Pius. There are many criticisms of the RK, but you are mistaken to say that viewing it as complicity is such a minor view as not to be worthy of inclusion. A well published image by a relatively mainstream author is worhty of inclusion, as long as its not presented as the only view (which you have conceded its not). Other positive images have been added and no one is preventing you from adding any image you desire. The fact that you shrug off the editorial value of image diversity (which would also be increased by pro-Pius images) and not having sections with no germane images, gives me pause. Please show me another image you think we should add rather than trying to censor material from critics of Pius. We already have images from sources which have a distinctly pro-Pius point of view. If you think images released by the Vatican to make the pope look heroic are neutral, you are very much mistaken. If we upheld your view that POV images can never be displayed in a NPOV way, we whould have no images.

NYT is a deifintely mainstream paper and the fact that you refer to it as anti-Catholic illustrates the ridiculousness of this whole discussion. Theres more than one criticism of Pius as I explained. We should highlight certain POVs in a neutral way.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

En contraire, it speaks books for the quality of the mainstream press. But the mainstream press has no weight in this, whereas mainstream scholarship has.

Also, repeating it doesn't make it any more right: the main criticism against Pius is his alleged silence.

Finally, image-diversity. The problem is that there is no and can be no such image countering the slandering effect of the Hirschberger image. I wonder how they over at Judaism would counter the inclusion of images from the Stürmer in the name of image diversity?

As a painting it cannot even claim accuracy or informative merits. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

11-14 July

There certainly are many such images used in a NPOV way on WP - see the page on anti-semitism for example. But are you seriously equating Hirschberger to Julius Streicher here, and criticism of the Reichskonkordat to blood libel?Bengalski 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But this is not the anti-Catholicism article but the one on Pius XII. And regarding the comparison: Hirschberger certainly had other motives for this painting, but it may still serve in the same way: slander a certain group. Which can have dramatic results. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please stop trying to pretend that the accuracy of the image is the issue here. The notability of the image has been repeatedly established as well as the fact that NPOV does not mean that we censor every artist or author who has a POV. I've also, in my last three posts addressed this claim you are making about "silence" being a bigger criticism. Once again, there are multiple criticisms, all of which are interconnected. The RK is certainly notable among them all. Hirshberger was not alone in his view. There is no slandering effect. This is a very comprehensive article; I don't think that we risk slandering Pius just by including one image.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Savidan, now you are telling others what the issue is? The accuracy is certainly part of the issue. The picture denotes a certain POV, which would be okay if we an also include the opposing POV. This is easily done with the article's text but with images it is harder, since there is no image depicting the opposite. Understandably, since it is easier to smear than to defend. You say you have addressed the "claim" but I can say the same: three times have I stated that you are mistaken about that. Certainly it is not the image alone that slanders, but it accompanies artticle already leaning towards a certain POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The article quoted by Chris does also mention the NYT, but I was referring to the one from London. I don't agree that the 'silence' criticism is entirely separate from a general criticism of his German policy and relations with Nazism. And from what I have seen critics of Pius often do address themselves to his whole record - eg. in Cornwell's case he begins with his stint as papal nuncio in Bavaria.Bengalski 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not entirely separate and no one has claimed that. But the picture explicitely refers to the Concordat, not just the silence. Anyway, the reason against this pic are given above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The NYT? What a slanderous rag? I hope that our reputable encyclopedia never dreams of citing it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, don't hit strawmen! I never said we cannot cite it, but we should stick to serious scholarship and not to a paper that has, well, its biases. Once upon the time, the Times had a better reputation and back then it had quite a different view on Pius. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You admit, I think, that criticisms of Pius - of which there are many - should be discussed in the article, but you are attempting to remove probably the only picture in the article that isn't a Vatican PR product. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere.Bengalski 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ben, I admit that such "criticisms" should be discussed in the article and both/all sides should be covered. But where are both sides covered in this issue picture-wise, when we only include this image?

"the only picture in the article that isn't a Vatican PR product" - well, most of the pictures are just documentations of certain events in his life (and many are added by your or Savidan). I don't that's PR. (Or are you saying, the signing of the RK picture is PR?) And what about Hitler and Orsenigo (which shouldn't be here in the first place)? What about the Cornwell title page (also off-topic)?

Yes, it seems to be going nowhere, since you are insisting in using that slandering picture.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think we are on to something here. The issue that rubs me wrong in your most recent post is the fundamental disjunct between the article's text and the article's images. I think the images should attempt to depict the facts and views represented in the text. I seems unecessary at this point to reiterate notability of the image in the context of Pius. However, if you think that "accuracy" is an issue we should be discussing for inclusion, it is an accurate portrayal of a contemporary criticism of Pius. Please start a new section if you want to revisit the other images (which we have already discussed several times)—otherwise this will become even more unreadable. In one sense, there is a very strong pro-Pius current of images: there were probably thousands of images taken of him as pope, and only pro-Pius authors today (read:Marchione) are able to have access to them. Hence, we have photos of him helping prisoners of war, visiting the Guttenberg, and heroically blessing crowds at both St. Peters and Rome (after the bombings). If you can't see that these by themselves are a one-sided representation of his papacy, you're blind. So, if a reader doesn't read any of the text and only looks at the images, there is very little risk that they would only get one view about Pius' papacy, much less a slanderous one (assuming that anyone is going to change their opinion just looking at a picture). We have such a balance of images at this point that I think tit-for-tat compromises would be inappropriate. If you find any good image, no matter the connotation, it will probably be included. So before you continue referring to this nebulous concept of the "pro-Pius" artwork, roll up your sleeves and find some. The whole concept that if we can't find the perfect "rebuttal image" we should scrap it seems misguided to me. Would we do the same in the article text? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, if this is going somewhere.

I never said that the image wasn't notable or didn't accurately depict one piece of criticism. However, it is (granted: IMHO) not an accurate depiction of historical reality, of historical findings and it certainly highlights a certain POV above others. And a "strong Pius current" in other images doesn't change that, as a) these other images are not delving into controversies as far as I can see, and b) they do not concern the issue highlighted in Hirschberger picture. The problem is exactly that there (probably) is no "Pius wasn't a Nazi colloborator" artwork, as such a point is much harder to illustrate than the slandering POV. And equating that to article text is misguided, as there is no POV that cannot be expressed in words. So if it exists (and it does) we can include it. However, with pictures this is much more difficult. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that its a good depiction of a notable view of Pacelli then we indeed have made progress. I do not contend that it is an "accurate depiction of historical reality"—whatever that means. History is all about interpretation. This is one interpretation, perhaps an extreme one, but useful for illustrating the fact that there is considerable differences between interpretations of Pius's actions during this period. If you also agree that there are several images that faciliate a pro-Pius point of view, that is also progress. However, the idea that they should have to be balanced tit-for-tat with other images is indeed misguided. There aren't any images depicting the view that Pius didn't do a lot to help prisoners of war during WWI, that doesn't mean we can't display an image that suggests he was on the front lines of such an effort (even if it was only a photo-op). I would also propose to you: if there is no pro-Pius artwork, then that doesn't mean that we should display no artwork relating to Pius. That would be an omission indeed. We should aim for balance in the article as a whole, and wherever a more neutral version can be achieved. However, wholesale omission of content is rarely a solution to alleged POV problems and indeed a solution explicitly against the current WP:NPOV policy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bengalski, savidan, Str1977. I'm just going to comment briefly. First, and most important, the pro-Hirschberger editors need to establish that images like this one are exempt from NPOV restrictions. That means citations to WP policies and guidelines, not further arguments. NPOV is a fundamental principle, departures from NPOV must be supported.

Comparing the Hirschberger image to Ewige Jude poster in the anti-Semitism article doesn't work. The point of including Ewige Jude is obviously to illustrate a certain anti-Semitic POV, not to suggest anything worthwhile about Jews. The image's POV is not the article's POV. If it appeared in a context where it could plausibly be interpretated as a commentary on Jews rather than on the persecutors of Jews it would have to be pulled. In the case of Hirschberger, the painting is a commentary on Pius, so we have to evaluate it for NPOV. Obviously, it's not a neutral image: it illustrates one side of the controversy, and an extreme interpretation at that.

Take a look at the imagery: Pacelli standing on Jewish corpse beside a Nazi soldier. This is very extreme imagery! I can understand the view that the Holocaust is so overwhelming and appalling an event that an artist like Hirschberger must turn to hyperbole to express a deeper truth. I can understand, but I'm not sure I agree. Regardless, it seems to me that in a Wikipedia context an image needs to support, not just a single, sophisticated interpretation, but other plausible, even unsophisticated, interpretations as well. Hirschberger's images, whatever its merits, can hardly avoid appearing as an endorsement of Goldhagen/Rubenstein-ish views of Pius, which, whether majority or minority views, are certainly POV. As such it must be either balanced or excluded for the sake of NPOV.

Thanks for the info on H's other works, Bengalski. Perhaps something like the priest without a mouth would be a more suitable image here, since it comes close to illustrating the prominent silence-of-the-pope criticism, albeit it's not a image of Pacelli.

Savidan, I don't really understand your comments about the Reichskonkordat. If the Hirschberger image is about the Reichskonkordat, then you should propose putting it in Reichskonkordat section. We'd still be disputing it, but we'd be having a slightly different dispute. Since it's in the Holocaust section, I'm discussing it in terms of the controversy around Pius's actions during the Holocaust, many years later.

I've got go now; I'll check back later today.--Chris 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy is about the way that content is presented (i.e. the wording of the caption and the location in the article), not about censoring content. It does not mean that we can't cite opinions as long as they are attributed to their authors or even that we can't use images with a POV (see the political cartoon examples Bengalski gives above). Both you and str1977 have repeatedly ignored my comments that the image is displayed in a NPOV way. No changes to the caption have even been proposed. The article does not state that the image is neutral; in fact, the caption is clear that it is just Hirshberger's view (leaving open that fact that it is shared by others).

In my view the image is already balanced, as are all the images we use. See my previous post; your assumption that every other image in this article is somehow neutral is incorrect. I know the imagery is extreme. I myself do not endorse it as an adequate summary of Pius's actions during the Holocaust or of the RK, but I endorse it as an adequate representation of a view held by Hirshberger and others.

This is the most appropriate image for the article, as it is widely regarded as a depiction of Pius. You'll note that the Cardinal in this image does not have a mouth either (possibly a reference to the "silence" thing, too—I'm not an art critic...).

It might also be in the RK section, but I think that it is more apt where it is, as it was a contemporary criticism of Pius but not a contemporary criticism of the RK persay, rather a criticism of it with hindsight of the Holocaust. As I point out above, the mouthless thing also makes it apply there. It also falls into the category of Holocaust art, thus making this section appropriate as well. Hope this helps. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Savidan,

this about balancing content and not about censoring it. But in the case of the picture I cannot think of any way to balance it except by removing the image (which doesn't take anything away from point raised in the article - hence it's not censoring; there are countless pictures that are not included - is this censoring?). Even a very carefully worded caption will not do, as pictures are more powerful than words.

I didn't say that any other picture is neutral! Two are in fact problematic (and one of these clearly off-topic). Some are neutral, while others are portraying Pius in a positive light. However, these are not concerned with a controversial issue.

I agree with the point Christ made above (re the "Ewiger Jude" picture; I was trying to say the same thing above)

That the Cardinal in the picture is Pacelli is pure speculation and the claim that he doesn't have a mouth just silly! He doesn't have a mouth because he doesn't have a face! This might be an artistic expression of something, or a way to point not to one individual but to a more than individual guilt (as Hirschberger perceives it).

Finally, the picture refers to the RK by its title (also written in black letters into the picture, if you look closely).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi savidan. Sorry, I don't mean to ignore any points you feel are important, it's just that I don't want to get bogged down in too much detail. But let me try to deal with your last response in a fairly comprehensive way.

NPOV policy is about the way that content is presented (i.e. the wording of the caption and the location in the article), not about censoring content. It does not mean that we can't cite opinions as long as they are attributed to their authors or even that we can't use images with a POV (see the political cartoon examples Bengalski gives above). Both you and str1977 have repeatedly ignored my comments that the image is displayed in a NPOV way. No changes to the caption have even been proposed. The article does not state that the image is neutral; in fact, the caption is clear that it is just Hirshberger's view (leaving open that fact that it is shared by others).

I can't agree that NPOV doesn't concern content. (There's no need to talk about "censorship"; we're just making an editorial decision.) Take a look at the WP policy on Undue Weight. Excerpt:

To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I'm not a bone-headed realist about art, but I think images have to be at least defensible in the light of fairly straightforward interpretation. By that standard, the Hirschberger image might be reasonably seen as endorsing something like the Goldhagen or Rubenstein quote cited above. In other words, it is giving "undue weight to a significant-minority view". Even if you don't buy this, you admit yourself that it is not "an adequate summary of Pius's actions during the Holocaust or of the RK" -- and so can hardly be defended against the charge of giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint.

In my view the image is already balanced, as are all the images we use. See my previous post; your assumption that every other image in this article is somehow neutral is incorrect. I know the imagery is extreme. I myself do not endorse it as an adequate summary of Pius's actions during the Holocaust or of the RK, but I endorse it as an adequate representation of a view held by Hirshberger and others.

I don't claim the other images in the article are balanced. Some may be open to discussion. Personally, I could do without the praying-pope photo... although I suspect that for many Pius critics it works ironically rather than as pro-Pius POV. Also, I have no objection to Hirschenberger's image appearing in article on Holocaust art, or even on art related to Pius XII. There could even be such a section in this article. (Though, seeing that we give Hochhuth only a few lines, this might be another case of undue weight - though a much less serious one of course.)

This is the most appropriate image for the article, as it is widely regarded as a depiction of Pius. You'll note that the Cardinal in this image does not have a mouth either (possibly a reference to the "silence" thing, too—I'm not an art critic...).

Nor am I an art critic, nor are 99 percent of Wikipedia readers. However, since the painting is being proposed as illustration for an historical section of the article, I think it's reasonable to hold it up to a fairly prosaic standard of accuracy. Yes, this may not do justice to the artist's vision - but we're not dealing with such subtle points here. We're concerned with the impact of the image on the general readership and whether this is NPOV. Now, I specifically invoked the NPOV/Undue Weight criteria. If you want to keep the picture, you need to provide some references to WP policy. More argumentation is not enough.

It might also be in the RK section, but I think that it is more apt where it is, as it was a contemporary criticism of Pius but not a contemporary criticism of the RK persay, rather a criticism of it with hindsight of the Holocaust. As I point out above, the mouthless thing also makes it apply there. It also falls into the category of Holocaust art, thus making this section appropriate as well. Hope this helps. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think putting it in the RK section would open a different can of worms, maybe the one with Spicy Italian Sauce. The Holocaust art section is a real possibility, though.--Chris 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I must flat out disagree with your unwarranted claim that Hirshberger's view is a minority one. It is both a notable and mainstream view and thus worthy of inclusion under Wikipedia's inclusion policies. I have provided evidence of this already; for example, that it appears on the front page of one of the few main biographies of Pius. Whatever you're views on Pius, you cannot deny that there are more critical works than one's which seek to defend him; not only that, from an objective point of view, they sell much better. Criticism of the RK as complicity was a main theme of Cornwell's work, for example, a bestseller. You'll note that the NPOV policy obliges us to represent such viewpoints, we should simply present them as such, as has been done.

You are correct that my person views differ from Hirshberger's but that should not matter at all. I will no longer even entertain attempts to argue about the accuracy of Hirshberger's view in the context of this image. We should present such viewpoints accurately to the best of our ability rather than attempting to evaulate for ourself and arguing that they should be omitted because they are wrong. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. This talk page and this article are not for having a debate about which view of Pius is correct, merely for reprenting the facts and the notable viewpoints. str1977 and CJGB, please acknowledge this point explicitly in your next response: its possible that I have mistaken your intent to argue that this image is "right" or "wrong."

As to location, I have already detailed above why the current location is preferable to the RK section, even if we didn't already have a good image in that section. The "contemporary" is another location I would be open to, but in my judgment is inferior for aescetic and stylistic reasons in addition to the points I have outlined above. A Holocaust art section seems unecessary at this point. We wouldn't have much text to put there and it would hurt the flow of this article.

Since you have conceded that several of the other images have a pro-Pius POV, would you agree that it would be better for the article from an editorial POV to contain a diversity of images rather than to eliminate all such images after a series a similiar lenghty discussion? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, please stop trying to restrict or stifle the discussion.

And please stop your constant accusastion that Chris or I want to leave out a certain view - this is not about leaving it out but about not giving it undue weight through a one-sided, unopposed picture.

The numbers of books depends on what books you mean: regarding scholarly works there are more works not agreeing with the so-called "criticism", if not in favour of Pius.

I agree that we should not eliminate all pictures. And no, regarding WP NPOV policy none of the images have a pro-Pius POV problem. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to stifle the discussion. Not trying to make this personal either. However, I don't see how making one of the dozen images in this article an illustration of a notable criticism of Pius constitutes "undue weight." Nearly every other image in this article comes from those selected for Marchione's book: to not seek other images, with other viewpoints, would unbalance the article. I see no need to reiterate right now all the points I made in the post directly previous to this one that you pass over. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, your statement accepted that you don't try to stifle. And I don't try to censor.

It is not that "making one of the dozen images in this article an illustration of a notable criticism of Pius constitutes 'undue weight'" - the problem is that in the controversial issue of Pius and the Third Reich, we have a picture to highlight one side of the debate (and it is not the scholarly most accepted one), while we have no picture to highlight the other side (in the end, because such a picture is impossible). And the one picutre is even a work of art and not documentary. (Not taken into account that there are actually three pictures included for the sake of bashing Pius).

The Hirschberger picture is not being countered and doesn't counter what you call the "pro-Pius" images, as these are not dipping into controversial issues: is there any debate about Eugenio Pacelli/Pius praying, EP/P being a priest (and how is that picture anything but neutral), EP/P handing out packages, EP/P examing a Gutenberg Bible (not neutral?), EP/P signing the Concordat, EP/P wearing the tiara, EP/P's COA, EP/P blessing the crowd, EP/P praying with a crowd, EP/P being carried on the seda gestatoria and EP/P's corpse? The only pictures that are somewhat positive are the title image (praying), the one "handing out packages" (but again, there's no dispute about that), the one "praying with the crowd" - maybe the one with the Gutenberg Bible (highlighting his being cultured) - all the others are neutral or going slightly in the anti-Pius direction (Cornwell's cover, Orsenigo & Hitler) and/or are off-topic (Orsenigo & Hitler).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it you refer to the HP cover and the Orsenigo image. Would you not agree that (with the possible exception of the Actes, which would be impossible to illustrate) HP is the single most notable book about Pius. It certainly sold the most copies. It's the most well known in the context of his name. For better or worse, it has cast a long shadow on his legacy. I could go on...I certainly don't think it's "included for the sake of bashing Pius," which—as the uploaded—I take offence to. Please try to assume good faith. (Savidan)

I was indeed referring to these. I don't care much what the most notable book is but I am not talking about the book. The image is somewhat problematic (we have discussed this before) but it is in the end the least problematic. However, I still think it is unnecessary. We don't need pictures for the books mentioned. Having a bit of history on this page, I know why and when something was included and, believe me, Pius-bashing was involved. But that's not the point. The point is not "why is it here" but "what does it do". 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The cover of the best-selling and best-known book about Pius seems like a reasonable image for the Pius section. The cover is not problematic. Literally, one misinformed blog claimed that the image was intended to make it look like Pius was visiting Hitler, when in fact it was depicting Pius's career as nuncio to Germany, which is (perhaps due to the limitations on available documents) where the majority of Cornwell's book focuses. I've been at this article a while as well; but not long enough to assume bad faith. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I can live with the cover being included, but I fervently insist that we don't actually need a book cover at all. I must also disagree with you about the "uninformed blog": we cannot read Cornwell's or his publisher's mind but to think that there were ulterior motives for taking such a picture (the German title picture is different) combined with the title "Hitler's Pope" is at least nit unreasonable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Orsenigo image we have discussed at length (albeit never in a centralized manner like this one). In a papacy who's primary characteristic was diplomacy (I think that both critics and supporters of Pius would agree on this point; given that his pre-papal career was as a diplomat, and that the historical consensus is that the conclave chose him at a critical geopolitical period specifically for his diplomatic skills), I think we need an illustration of his wartime diplomacy. His diplomats to each of the individual allied nations are not particularly notable because he didn't really file diplomatic complaints with them (until after and towards the end of the war, asking for leniency, and later amnesty) or have many other significant interactions. Throughout Pius's papacy, Orsenigo basically mediated the Holy See's interactions with the Reich. I think we can agree on the notability of this diplomatic link, without delving into the intentions, actions, or results of it. This is doubly notable as Pius himself never met with Hitler or any upper echelon Nazi official (save the one example Brendayconway added, who doesn't really qualify as "upper echelon"). Despite the gut reaction of "picturing anyone with Hitler is defamation", is there really anything wrong with the image. The sole connotation is that Orsengio was Pius's diplomatic representative to Hitler, which he was. (Savidan)

We have discussed this before, but the picture doesn't include Pacelli but his sucessor. Just because we don't have a picture of Pacelli and Hitler, doesn't mean we need a substitute. You don't have to explain Orsenigo's job to me - I know about it. I can't think of an article of say, a head of state, where one of his ambassadors is shown meeting another head of state. If there's such an article, please show it to me - if there isn't, why are we making an exception here. The picture is relevant in a Orsenigo article, even in a Nuncio article, but not in a Pius article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is not a "substitute" for a mughsot of Pius with Hitler. It's notable in its own right. I don't know that much about other heads of state, but in Pius's case both diplomacy and Germany, specifically diplomacy with germany, dominated his papacy. Thus, the man through which all of his diplomacy with Germany was mediated is extremely notable. If he'd focused his papacy on relations with India (perhaps converting the country to catholicism) then his ambassador to India would probably be a good image to have. Jtdirl's caption is very balanced I think. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So diplomacy dominated Pius' life? I agree. Therefore we have picturs of him as a Nuncio (including the Cornwell cover) as well as Secretar of State (signing the RK). We don't need another image and certainly we don't need an image in which he is absent, especially since the picture is from 1935 - a time already "represented" by the "signing" picture. Also, the picture is not referring to any diplomatic event but simply the usual New Year's event. I agree that Jtdir's caption is good and balanced - the problem is merely the topicality of the pitcture. So, move it from here to Orsenigo. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Oops, just discovered that there is no such article. Still, here it is off-topic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have slightly misread my post. Diplomacy did dominate Pius's early career, but it also dominated his papacy. However, his diplomacy toward Germany during his papacy was unique in that it was absentee diplomacy. The picture could be added to an Orsengio article, but it is also extremely relevant here. It's important for the reader to know. Do you think the topicality of the picture would be enhanced by adding a caption that although Pius focused much diplomatic effort toward Germany, his single meeting with Joachim von Ribbentrop was the only communication not mediated through his diplomatic corp. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think we are getting anywhere speculating whether critics or defenders of Pius have the upper hand with the general public or with scholars. To be honest, I had thought that you would agree with me on this point. Dalin, for example, argues that criticisms of Pius are dominant in scholarly and media circles (which he considers "liberal"), and states that he wrote his book to attempt to correct the fact that criticisms of Pius are such widely held views. There isn't really any evidence that his book has succeeded in this goal (it was only published in 2005; I think we need a little more time to assess its impact. However, the point I am trying to make is that with the two exceptions I have answered above, every image except the Hirshberger image is available to us today because it was either published by the Catholic church or by Sister Marchione. To use only images from these sources would be extremely unbalanced. Marchione's perspective (that Pius should be canonized) is perhaps even the minority view within the Catholic church, which stalled Pius's canonization track post-2000. You are welcome to argue against the accuracy of Pius's critics, but its impossible to argue against their notability and their widespread influence in scholarly, media, and public circles. Calling them a "minoirity view" is equally unwarranted. (Savidan)

No we are not getting anywhere, but if you make a claim that I think and know to be mistaken, I will speak up. (And yes, the view is prevalent in "liberal" circles in media and academia - only that the actual scholarship dealing with Pius predominantly thinks otherwise.) That a belief is widespread in the general public (including aforementioned media) is another issue - but we don't take US public opinion in account in articles like this. Prejudice dies hard, especially when it was based on lies like the Deputy in the first place. Consider some of the Kings from Shakespeare: 500 years have gone by and still many believe Shakespeare to be history.

To address your point: I don't object to pictures from other sources being used (in fact, I don't care) but this can be no basis for the inclusion of a picture turning a section into POV pushing. I have repeatedly explained this above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Many historical interpretations die hard, but Wikipedia should never be the one to kill them. We are not a publisher of original thought. Other sources take positions on controversy; Britannica, for example, takes explicit editorial positions in their article on Pope Pius XII. Wikipeida by design does not have that luxury; we should not take sides between notable viewpoints, but rather lay them out on their own terms. Part and parcel of this style of writing is that we shouldn't declare viewpoints published in notable and well-read works to be simply incorrect and attempt to purge them. It may never be possible for all editors of this article to agree on a consensus viewpoint of Pius; but we should be able to agree on what the main viewpoints are. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't advocate taking sides. What I advocate is that WP doesn't add fuel to the fire. The fire brigade must indeed do its work elsewhere. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, I do not even subscribe entirely to Hirshberger's view; however, I do feel very strongly that it is an important one in the context of Pope Pius XII, and one which we omit with peril to our own credibility. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, if it could be balanced. But I can't see how. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to invert your objection: I wouldn't object to only using images released by the Vatican or selected by Marchione if they could be balanced. I do see how these images can be balanced: to include images produced by Pius's critics such as the Hirshberger image and the cover of Hitler's pope (I do not consider the Orsenigo image to fall into this category). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What balance are you talking about? How do these pictures need balancing. What they show is not controversial and where the pictures comes from is of no consequence (if the pictures are accurate). An objection of such a kind is telling indeed. And suddenly, the Cornwell cover is called balancing, whereas above you seemed to imply that it was perfectly neutral. The same goes for the Orsenigo pic. Now, do want to have or eat your cake? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the HP cover is a representation of Cornwell's work, although (unlike Hirshberger) not a representation of his view. So in one sense, the cover is neutral, in that it just shows the cover of the main book about Pius. However, in another sense, it is an image of Pius which was dug up by a source other than Marchione. My point is that three images in the article have been disputed in various ways, but the much larger issue is that every other image was selected by authors with a distinct viewpoint of Pius; taken together they paint a pretty good picture of the pope, but not a neutral one by Wikipedia's standards. And it is indeed the background of these images which other users use as a baseline to dispute the neutrality of other images, which is extremely problematic. Obviously you and I mean different things when we talk about "balancing" images: you seem to prefer tit-for-tat balancing which cannot be accomplished for any image in this article; I prefer presenting images from POV sources (and they are all from POV sources) on their own terms but in a neutral way. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't object to the HP cover on grounds of POV. I merely questioned whether we need to include a book cover ... and only this one book cover.

I still don't see that there is a problem ex sese in the source of various pictures.

What you call my insistence on "tit-for-tat balancing" is due to my taking the power of images into account. And the Hirschberger image is very powerful in its presentation, regardless of whether the text is balanced or not. Also, I disagree with "all from POV" sources - there has not yet been raised any argument about the other pictures being problematic regarding POV. Also you should consider that the ohters are photographs (not manipulated) and this one is a (non-realist) painting. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have created some confusion here by my use of the phrase "minority view". I was not using it pejoratively, in the sense of a pariah view or a view that must not be included in an article. I just meant not the leading view. The context was my assertion that Hirschberger's image tends to support some of the very harshest views of Pius's wartime conduct - like those expressed by Goldhagen and Rubenstein. I would characterise those as minority views in the sense that they are less prominent than the more-in-sorrow-than-anger view you find in Cornwell, for example. Surely that is not controversial.

I'm not claiming, btw, that those are Hirschberger's views, though they may be; I'm saying that as a illustration for the Holocaust section, the Hirschberger painting tends to support those views, giving them Undue Weight. If you're arguing that Hirschberger's views are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, then a purely verbal description of his relevant works (with links) might be acceptable. But including this kind of highly charged and extremely hostile imagery in the article would overbalance whatever point of one sees it as representing.

I don't follow your argument about image sources versus image content. To me, the sources are irrelevant, since the reader isn't going to know where an image came from. Only the content and probable impact of an image need be taken into account. In any case, except for Hirschberger's none of the images strike me a terribly controversial, so the "balance" argument doesn't work for me anyway.

You've made a number of arguments about why this POV image is acceptable in this article: it represents a notable point of view, it's been used on the cover of a prominent, critical book, it's "balanced" by other imagery in the article, that POV concerns captions and placement rather than content. You claim these principles are Wikipedia conventions. What you haven't done, despite repeated requests, is reference Wikipedia policies that support your claims.

Remember, violations of NPOV must be deleted from Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is not necessary to keep content just because it doesn't violate NPOV. Decisions of that sort are editorial decision made by consensus. At one time there may have been a consensus for keeping the Hirschberger, but clearly there is no longer.--Chris 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

15-?? July

Str1977, not a lot of disagreement with your last post. I'd be open to another book cover...however none strike me as particularly a good choice. If we only go with one I think we have gone with the most notable. The rest of your points are reiterated by Chris, so I won't duplicate my response.

I don't think I misunderstood your "minority view" claims at all. Hirshberger's claim, in essence, is that Pius was complicit in the Holocaust for taking a diplomatic approach toward the Nazis, embodied by the RK. This is not a minority point of view. I won't debate the merits of the view here, but however you measure (books, sales of books, # of academics, media coverage, general public, etc.) it just doesn't qualify as such. Using dramatic imagery doesn't change the fact that the point he is trying to communicate is actually a major point of view. If you wish to pursue this point, it would be helpful to try to talk in some substantial measure of the state of the debate.

It's hard to adequately show the Holocaust art produced in response to Pius during the Holocaust in a "purely verbal description". Since the notability of this viewpoint has been established, then the negative impact on the article of its removal is also obvious. You ask me to reference Wikipedia's policies? First, let me refer you to Wikipedia: Images: "articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material." In the context of Pope Pius XII, variety certainly should dictate a substantial amount of images not selected by Marchione. Also, if (as I have established) the image constitutes a major rather than minor viewpoint, the "undue weight" policy which you have quoted works in the opposite direction. There is value to illustrating prominent viewpoints about Pope Pius XII, just as there is value to illustrating concrete facts about his life.

Finally, your last paragraph seems to indicate that we should err on the side of removing the material. I think it is exactly the opposite. First, the image has been here for a long time, specifically pre-dating the Featured article candidacy (in which at least one user specifically complemented the images). There should be consensus for substantial changes from that version, not the other way around. Second, the loss of content is not the prefered solution to percieved POV problems. Rather such content should be rewritten to conform to the NPOV policy, in this case by proposing a caption which adequately and accurately introduces the image in a NPOV fashion. We have already estblished that POV images (by which I mean images produced by an author who has a distinct opinion about the subject in quesiton) can and do appear in a NPOV fashion on Wikipedia, namely by noting the author's point of view and the context of the image. Third, this discussion is nothing close to a consensus: I count 2-2 (me and Bengalski vs. you and str1977).

Also, I think that you misunderstand my argument about the plethora of Marchione images. (you say: "To me, the sources are irrelevant, since the reader isn't going to know where an image came from."). My point is that the reader is unlikely to know the sources of such images, but that fact makes the source even more relevant for such discussions, namely because images which were specifically selected to illustrate work with a distinct point of view are presented as unquestionably neutral. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Savidan,

"that Pius was complicit in the Holocaust" is an extreme view no matter he stretched logic then given for the "how" - and "for taking a diplomatic approach toward the Nazis, embodied by the RK" is indeed very stretched. Such a reasoning would make very many statesmen much more "complicit in the Holocaust", think all the statesmen that ever formed a treaty with Hitler.

Anyway, majority and minority only make sense when you qualify them. Is it "public opinion" or is it "scholarly views"? In the latter case, the views mentioned are definitely extreme and minority.

"It's hard to adequately show the Holocaust art produced in response to Pius during the Holocaust in a "purely verbal description"" - it might be hard but that is not actually this article's job. This article is about Pius and not about Holocaust art.

"the loss of content is not the prefered solution" - I somewhat agree but I wonder why Hirschberger is suddenly content when hitherto he was only illustrating a certain view. Which way will you have it?

Re the "images specifically selected" - the difference to Hirschberger is that these are photos.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• The image establishes an extreme view of Pius. While the image is less tasteful than the cover to "Hitler's Pope," the idea is the same and necessary to fully understand the subject. The image should stay. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't be repeating myself anymore; just reponding to the most recent analysis. Str calls the image an "extreme view"; that may be true and I agree with it, but extreme/moderate has nothing to do with notability, etc. and thus is irrelevant. Even after a month of discussion, you still take to arguing against the thesis of the image rather than whether or not this is a notable viewpoint. Additionally, illustrating a certain view is "content" in the sense that it is hard to really undertand Pius from a biogrpahical point of view without understanding such things. Agree fully with Staxringold. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is "necessary to fully understand the subject"? - You got to be kidding!

"it is hard to really undertand Pius from a biogrpahical point of view without understanding such things." - does that mean "... without that image"? - A strange claim indeed!

You are still hitting the straw man. I don't object because of a lack of notability but because it achieves POV pushing if not balanced. It is a strange view IMHO that the fact that this is a extreme view is of no consequence. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Savidan: We have already estblished that POV images (by which I mean images produced by an author who has a distinct opinion about the subject in quesiton) can and do appear in a NPOV fashion on Wikipedia, namely by noting the author's point of view and the context of the image.

No, we have not established this. I have rejected this view whenever you have asserted it and have asked you repeatedly to provide supporting references in WP policies and guidelines. My patience on this issue is at an end. --CJGB (Chris) 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A fresh look

I've just quickly looked through whats been written here and it looks like you're all going over the same old same old, so I thought I'd another 2 cents...

I've seen a couple of other debates about caricatures/political cartoons. They are often (in my opinion) useful on wikipedia for describing people's POVs (so obviously can't be NPOV) - a picture represents 1000 words.

There are a number of problems you can come across:

1. Unfair caption
2. Cartoons included express only one POV (ie you have 10 images on one side none on the other)
3. Article appearing to support one POV because of the inclusion of the cartoon

I think point 1 is simple enough to fix (hell its good enough now). With point 2, there isn't really another argument to express (at the other extreme I don't know of any cartoons that would show the pope hugging a jew).

I think that on the third point this image is letting down the article. I don't know much about the Pope during WWII, but was vaguely aware that there was at least a small PR blunder. Anyway - as someone who doesn't know about the topic, viewing it first time, you see the image and it cements in your mind that the pope WAS complicit. This is what I imagine most people who want the image out have a problem with - and I'd agree.

Now to fix it, I think a halfway house is possible. In most cases you can separate the points of views into separate sections - putting the image into the "Pope was complicit with holocaust section". That way the image shows that the section is about POVs of people who felt the pope was complicit. Likewise you can have a section listing all the proof that he wasn't complicit. I don't know if this is possible on this article, but someway of making sure that the image (which is the first thing you see) doesn't make the reader's mind before he reads it.

Hope this is helpful. -- 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the first two problems are not what is at issue here. However, can we follow your third point a little farther, namely the question of wehther the "Article appear[s] to support one POV because of the inclusion of the cartoon." Having already stated that you think that politicla cartoons and the link can be useful, do you think that this is something that can be fixed with presenation, namely by a caption which does not endore the view. I guess you already said the current one is fine, but do you think there are any changes that could be made that would clarify that the image represents Hirshberger's viewpoint? Obviously, no one is going to think that he literally stood on top of a Jew with a Nazi; it seems like the artistic license is immediately clear.

As to placement, in this article its possible that it could be in the "Contemporary" section. I consider that a legitimate possibility, but one that is worse for stylistic and content reasons: it hurts the image density, and it moves the image to a section where it is less relevant (in my judgement). If others disagree with me on this point, I'd be open to it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this poster has made some good points. I'll rejoin this discussion early next week. I've been busy.--CJGB (Chris) 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit

I feel like this edit needs a little more explanation than the edit summary gives. First, Brendanconway, you are relatively new to the article, but I would like to let you know that an anon kept trying to add that information about Czeckoslovakian history which has literally nothing to do with Pope Pius XII and thus does not belong in his biography and has been reverted multiple times. This is not the place for the entire history of the Holocaust to be written, even the the entire history of the Holocaust and the Catholic Church. Just things that have strictly to do with Pope Pius XII's biography.

Second, the sentence about Sedevacantists. They are a minority within the Catholic Church for sure, but this is the definition of an extremely notable minority viewpoint. They regard him as the last true Pope. This is similar to the Pope before the Western Schism, for example. It's notable; it's also useful to know because a lot of information on Pius XII (perhaps the majority of internet info on him) comes from Sedevacantist sources.

Third, the biased caption for Hitler's Pope, it doesn't belong here. The cover is something that should be discussed in the Hitler's Pope article, but isn't extremely relevant here. This has been discussed above. Please try to get some kind of consensus before adding any additional one-sided material to the extremely brief but adequate current summary.

User:Donnog's no consensus changes to the intro which has been agreed on by myself, str1977, bengalski, and others requires no further explanation. See the above section. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with much of the above.

1. I believe that the information on Slovakia that I inserted which you reverted proves that not only was Pius aware of the Slovakian deportations, but allowed or asked his Secretariat of State to condemn the deportations. It therefore has great importance to Pius given the controversy about him. I would be grateful if you revert these changes as to leave the article as it is implies that Pius did nothing about the issue. The only fair alternative would be not to mention Slovakia in this section. I am a long-standing contributor to Wikipedia.

2.With regard to the Sedevacantists: they represent an extremely small group within Catholicism, and cannot really be compared to the Great Schism of the West, when Catholicism was rent into several parts. However, you may keep this in the intro if you feel it so important.

3. 'Hitler's pope' - I'm sure you noticed I did not add this material.

Please respond to 1 above as the article cannot stay as it stands. --File Éireann 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that I was not accusing you adding the other material; I realize that it was Donnog. As for the paragaph that you inserted I have reproduced it below to ease discussion. I strike through the parts that have nothing to do with Pope Pius XII. I think that this is an extremely lengthy treatment of something that has very little to do with Pius. Would it be possible to (1) remove the first sentence about the Final Solution in Slovakia, instead adding "of Jews to labor camps" after "first transport" in the seocnd sentence (2) Summarize the lengthy quotation? If those two things can be done to shorten it I would be fine with it staying for the time being. Also, does Lapide actually indicate taht this has anything to do with Pius, i.e. that Burzio was acting on his orders, and if so, does he have any evidence to suggest that this is the case? I have doubts about its relevance to Pius in the big picture otherwise, but if the lengthy quote and the sentence about the Holocaust in Slovakia generally are trimmed I could be ammenable to its addition. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'Final Solution' for Slovakia's 90,000 Jews began in March 1942, when 52,000 of them were deported to 'lahor camps' within four months. On March 11, 1942, several days before the first transport was due to leave, the papal nuncio in Bratislava, Monsignor Burzio, reported to the Vatican: "I have been assured that this atrocious plan is the handwork of Tuka...I went to see the Prime Minister, who confirmed the plan, defending vehemently its legality, and he dared to tell me - he who makes such a show of his Catholicism - that he saw nothing inhuman or unChristian in it...the deportation of 80,000 persons to Poland, is equivalent to condemning a great number of them to certain death."

User:Savidan

This user keeps moving the claim Pius is "controversial" to the very top of the article which is very inappropriate, even before his career is addressed, as if it was the most important thing to say that some Anti-Catholic Jews hate him.

He also keeps adding the POV "amnesty for war criminals" claim, which is both POV, misleading, taken out of context and obviously nationalist/partisan.

First, describing people only from one side as "criminals" is POV. If soldiers of defeated countries shall be described as such, also Stalinist and Allied war criminals must be addressed. Secondly, this is not worthy of being included in the introduction. The policies of the Holy Father in regard to defeated countries is already addressed. Singling out one detail is not acceptable. How about other details? Some user want to smear the Pope as much as possible, by including tons of pictures linking him with Hitler (even pictures unrelated to the Pope) and starting the entire article with Hitler associations. Donnog 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, the historical controversy about Pius's papacy is more notable than the fact that he used to hold other positions within the Holy See. War criminal is a term of art, and if you follow the link to that article you will see that the terminology takes up a substantial portion of it. That said, war criminals is accurate in this article and its really not relevant to this article to challenge the aptness of such terms of art. It is worthy of being included in the introduction because it consumed much of his post-war papacy which btw is about half of his papacy. I'd advice you to read the existing discussion on the pictures.

As for the intro, I will admit that I am not entirely confortable with the fact that the first sentence mentions the controversey. Originally, I envisioned one sentence saying he led the Catholic Church duing XXXX historical periods and a second describing that those periods had recieved a lot of historical attention and controversy. However, the current one basically imparts the same information in less words. The disadvantage is that the Cold War isn't mentioned because his actions during the Cold War aren't nearly as controversial as his actions during the Holocaust. Would you prefer a construction similar to the one that follows? I consider it too wordy, but want to hear what other users think about thissavidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He led the Catholic Church through World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. His actions during The Holocaust have received much attention from historians and remain controversial.

Whatever your view of Pius, I don't think you can reasonably deny that the controversy is highly notable. I would say, probably it's the thing he is most known for at the current time. Look at recent books or newspaper articles published on him - how many are completely or partly devoted to taking a side over his actions during the holocaust? Or do a quick google search and most sites in the list are either a) a rabid (generally protestant, not jewish) site attacking him ; b) an equally fervent catholic apologia; or at least c) a more considered if probably still partisan account of the debate.Bengalski 20:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I think the wording is fine as it is - we've also discussed this before (see archives).Bengalski 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

His career is clearly more notable than the attacks from certain groups. That Pius XII "reigned as the 260th pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and sovereign of Vatican City State from March 2, 1939 until his death. His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and the Holocaust remains the subject of continued historical controversy." gives the impression that this is what is to say about his papacy. It is outrageous! How can such POV pushing be tolerated? Donnog 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Donnog - I strongly suggest that you read the previous archived discussion on this matter, then if you want to change the consensus version of the intro discuss it here - you might start by responding to Savidan's proposal above. But please don't let's start another edit war.Bengalski 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus version. There is a POV version supported to one to three users. And even a consensus is not allowed to disregard the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Donnog 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick review of your contribution history indicates that you constantly get into revert wars thinking that you are on the right side of the NPOV policies when in fact many other users strongly disagree with you. Instead of using "NPOV" as a buzz-word to continue reverting, why not propose an alternate version and explain why its more NPOV. Then, if people agree with you, someone else will add it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Those who disagree with me are either nationalist partisans or other POV pushers who without my help get involved in many, many edits wars in order to push nationalist POVs. Sadly, there are many POV pushers at Wikipedia. Donnog 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am basically proposing: 1) to move the controversy sentence to its appropriate place, which is not the second sentence in the entire article, only after his name (as if it was the most important thing to say about Pius), but at the end of the first section. 2) I support the view of Str1977 that his policies towards the defeated countries is addressed suffiently in the introduction, and the extreme focus on alleged "war criminals" is POV and given undue prominence. I also think it is taken out of a broader context in order to push an anti-Pius POV. The entire introduction and most of the pictures were especially in the past designed only to make him look like a bad man. Donnog 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly do you think is the most important fact about Pius? Sorry to disagree with you. I must be a "nationalist partisan"... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Food aid?

This was added:

The Pope was also disturbed by the world famine that continued after the war. More than a forth of the world's population suffered from starvation after World War II, which caused a horrified Pius to ask the world's well off to help the crisis, particularly the people of the United States.

The cite is incomplete and the meaning is unclear. First, its not npov to describe Pius as "disturbed" or "horrified". Don't speculate as to what he was thinking or feeling; just state what it said and did. Second, the sentence is very unclear as to who Pius asked to help whom and how he asked to to help. Did he ask the U.S. to give economic aid to Africa? etc. My guess is that this came from a (relativley) recent book quoting an old newpaper article which didn't know the full details. We should either cite a primary source (i.e. a speech or encyclical by Pius) or a secondary which assesses the big picture about his view of international aid. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't object to this call for a better reference or the other legitimate concerns, I must take exception to a misconception uttered in here: it is NPOV to describes a person's feelings if they are described in a source! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right that it could be made point of view by attributing it to a source (e.g. the Syracuse Post Standard described Pius as "horrified") but that's just bad writing. No one cares about the adjectives used by a non-notable newspaper. But I do agree with your general claim. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not a person in Upstate New York that has not heard of the Syracuse Post Standard. It's an American Newspaper that takes most of it's content from the same sources as any notable paper. Would you edititors rather me take information from the Soviet Pravda?

The issue is not so much the source but the tone. This is written in a style that would be more befitting of text porn or a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Adjectives like "horrified" and "disturbed" are dangerous because they are inherently unverifiable and very often indicative of a tone connoting a certain point of view. This would be true no matter what the source was. I'd be interested in specifically what Pius did to combat the global famine after WWII. If it's just something he talked about, it'd still probably be notable what exactly he called for and from whom. Also being as its over 60 years after the fact, it'd be good form to find out whether he followed up on this or was successful, etc. Unless you happened to be digging though the archives of the Syracuse Post Standard, would you mind telling us which secondary source you found this in? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This reversion

This reversion requires more explanation than can fit in the edit summary window. In short, it added a lot of bias and a few instances of things which were demonstrably false. Two things in particular have potential, which normally would have warranted me fixing them instead of reverting them, but for reasons that I will explain, this was not possible due to the incomplete and obscure citations.

• I removed the biased sentence about how the RK was a "morally defensible" treaty. That is textbook editorialism. The facts about the importance of concordats are already stated enough for the purposes of this article and further explained by the Wikilinks.
• The criticism of Scholder's work lacked citations for the bizarre shout out to Konrad Repgen and to Scholder's papers. It's fine to offer an alternative to Scholder's view, but instead it should offer sourced facts (i.e. the warrants of those who disagree with Scholder) rather than stating in a verbose way that some non-notable people disagree with him without saying why.
• The pavelic private/diplomatic audience thing would have been OK, except the citation was to the minutes of some unspecified document. Pavelic's inner desires are not facts that can be stated encyclopedicly, instead they have to be attributed to whoever said that Pavelic wanted such an audience. I would have fixed this myself, except the author of this idea was unclear given the citation.[See CJGB, note 1]
• The forcible conversions similarly only cited a secondary source, not the document itself. "from the Vatican Secretiat of State to the LEgation of Yugoslavia to the Holy See" is grammatically impossible, leaving me (or others) unable to clear this up without further input from the adder.[See CJGB, note 2]
• As to adding "Cornwell claimed that his work" was the first to have access to these documents. That is patently false. Cornwell does not make this claim. That would be Sanchez in his Understanding the Controversy, if it was a claim at all. It's not. It's a fact.[See CJGB, note 3]
• The thing about the HP cover has been discussed before. This new strain of it is also incorrect, because Cornwell never stated that the image was from 1939. There was no citaiton that gem either. Perfect example of the idiosyncracies of the historiography of the situation which have no relevance to the facts of Pacelli's biogrpahy.

Hope this helps. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're still being too high-handed. I'll semi-revert a couple of things. Here are my notes.

• Note 1. I've restored this with a citation flag, as you should have done. Presumably the editor who added it wasn't rummaging in the Foreign Office archives and can produce a better source. The attribution of anger is acceptable, since it is usually not a purely internal state but is evinced publicly.
• Note 2. What's wrong with secondary sources? The language is awkward but not ungrammatical. I'm restoring it.
• Note 3. How does this point relate to the controversy around Rachlyk's allegation that, despite his claims, none of Cornwell's cites are actually to unpublished material? One might also mention Rachlyk's claim that C. exaggerated the length of time he spent in the archives. I'll leave this as is for now, though.

--CJGB (Chris) 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pavelic thing is still a little problematic. Generally its better to develop such things on the talk page than to add citation flags to featured articles. The info was added by an anon who may never return and may have only even been temporarily assigned that IP address, and thus unable even to respond to talk page messages. The citation was incomplete. Minutes of what? The British Foreign Office contains a lot of minutes of a lot of meetings with a lot of different speakers. Apparenlty some unknown person thought that Pavelic was angry at some unknown meeting. However, it is extremely irresponsible to state that as a fact. If the citation was more complete (or if we knew what secondary source this came from—because the anon clealry wasn't editing from the BFO archives) I would track it down myself. I think its best to leave it on the talk page than to leave it with a citation flag. Citation flags are only useful for facts that nearly any editor could track down a cite for:

This greatly angered Pavelic because he was permitted only a private audience rather than the diplomatic audience he wanted.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

You've been stepping on a (probable) newbie's toes. It's time to make amends. You've possibly soured him on Wikipedia already by blanket-reverting his edits without an entry on the Talk page. This a blatant violation of WP policy, though, to be fair, you added an explanation once I'd pointed it out to you. I'm giving him 48 hours to clarify the reference. In the mean time, I'm restoring the sentence. Not to do so imputes bad faith to the editor (who clearly has a source somewhere).

As for statements like Generally its better to develop such things on the talk page than to add citation flags to featured articles and Citation flags are only useful for facts that nearly any editor could track down a cite for, I'll thank you to provide references for your claims about WP policy.--CJGB (Chris) 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the Cornwell thing, it's not Cornwell's claim. It's merely something that Sacnhez points out in Understanding the Controversy. Sanchez has a pretty good chapter where he explains what all the primary sources are relating to Pius and which secondaries were the first to use them, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornwell claimed to have been given access to "secret" material. Critics have disputed whether any of the material he cites was actually secret in the sense of being previously unpublished, so we should probably make sure this passage doesn't mislead the reader about the state of the controversy, Sanchez aside.--CJGB (Chris) 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This secret material thing is a different issue from what is currently mentioned in the article. The secret thing has no implication for the way that primary sources about Pius have entered the literature proper and thus should probably be added to the Hitler's Pope article and not here. There would be adequate room to expand upon it there without cluttering this article with all the nit-picky infighting among people who write about Pius.

I'll let the unsourced sentence stay for 48 hours as you wish. There's no policy about these {unreferenced} templates, but common sense indicates that they should be used for things where it is possible that another user will be able to come along and add a reference, not to permanently flag material which should be removed. Common sense also dictates that if citations are not avaialable, proposed additions should be discussed on the talk page of featured articles rather than adding the unsightly {unreferenced} template indefinitely (i.e. "without compromising previous work").

Given the number of IPs who just happen to show up at this article knowning how to use the <ref> </ref>, it is possible that this IP is not a newbie at all, but you are right that we should give him/her the benefit of the doubt. I may have been a little to hard on the IP editor, but that is no excuse for allowing unreferenced or biased material to persist. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's possible he's not a newbie; we have no way of knowing. But the material is referenced. It's just a incorrectly constructed reference. Botched, if you like, but quite possibly valid. The editor has apparently done what novices often do - passed along a primary-source reference that they actually picked up in a secondary source. (I recall a study that calculated about a third of published articles contained passed-through references.) So there's a fair chance that he or she can provide a complete reference, more than a snowball's chance in hell anyway. If there had been no reference whatsoever, I would lean towards deleting it too. I agree these tags shouldn't persist for long, but I think the proponents need a fair chance. I may be too much of a softie - see my latest intervention at Ethnic cleansing.--CJGB (Chris) 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a judgment call to make: we can either remove material entirely (contributions of the "I don't know how critics/defenders of Pius sleep at night" variety), add fact tags, or move the material to the talk. When the citation is missing entirely, moving it to the talk page or just unceremoniously deleting it are the only options. When the citation is incomplete, it's just a judgement call. I made one, you disagreed, that's fine. I do think that {fact} tags can be damaging to the quality of articles where the references are otherwise impecable. Maybe this IP will come back and fix the info in a timely fashion. We'll see. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

La Popessa--proposed additions

I've just finished reading Murphy's La Popessa, told from the perspective of Sister Pascalina Leihnert, who is generally acknowledged as an important figure behind the scenes from Pacelli's nunciature throughout his papacy. The book is based on Murphy's interviews with Leihnert (who died frin 80s not too long after the book was published) and in no small part on her still unpublished "memoirs".

The book is extremely valuable in making clear a variety of small details that fit into the narrative consensus of most secondary sources. I'll add a lot of this to the article over the next few days an I suspect all of these additions will be uncontroversial.

However, there are a few facts in the book which I suspect could be extremely controversial. I am not interested for the time being in adding anything to this article facts which only pertain to Pascalina, or to the question of how much influence she had in some of the key actions of his career. Yet, the book is the only source I have found so far for some facts which seem extremely notable in the context of Pius.

I'll give two examples, one that many editors are likely to find biased against Pius and one that many would find equally biased towards Pius. First, Pascalina claims that Pacelli met with Hitler in 1919 in his Munich nunciature, going so far as to say that he financially contributed to his anti-communist activities (p. 52). No secondary source that I know of picks up this claim (even Cornwell contends that they never met, which seems to be the consensus view, at least on the internet. See: [5] [6] [7]). However, none of these are primary sources, and thus I find this claim worthy of inclusion, provided it is attributed to Pascalina and it is noted that (despite the difficulty of proving a negative) most authors contend that they never met. It is certainly true that he never met with Hitler after rising to the office of Secretariat.

Another example: Pascalina claims that as the head of the Pontifical Relief Committee, she issued hundreds of false papal identity cards (concealed among the thousands of legitimate ones) to Jews thougout occupied Europe so that they could pass safely to the Vatican (p. 203-205). Like the Hitler meeting, no other source confirms this claim (the Pontifical Relief Committee gets zero hits on Google Books. In fact, both are by their very nature unverifiable because Pascalina indicates that no one knew of either of these actions except Pius and herself. I chose these two examples to illustrate my view that Pascalina does not fit as neatly into the debate as some of you may initially think. I'll await some discussion on this page about the source before inserting anything from this book which I think is likely to be controversial. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi savidan. Just a minor correction. You stated that the phrase "Pontifical Relief Committee" got "zero hits on Google Books". But actually, the phrase does get one lonely hit from Google Books [8] It was from Google Scholar ( which is what you cited ) that no hits were, and are, currently being returned. [9] Just a typo I'm sure. Delta x 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually glad that you found that because it demonnstrates my point. Theres no other primary source for Pascalina's work on the PRC. La Popessa is the only secondary source that worked directly with her. That book is most likely based off of La Popessa, although it doesn't include the false identity card thing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Are you sure that the dove in Pius' coat of arms is a symbol of diplomacy? Since the dove is carrying an olive branch (?), I always thought the dove was the symbol of the divine peace (as referred to in the Holy Bible). This would match the Pope's motto "opus justitiae pax" which means "Peace is the work of justice". --UAltmann 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment--Hirshberger Image

In response to UAltmann's recent unilateral removal of the Hirshberger image and note on my talk page indicating that he would like "moderated mediation", I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the first step in the formal dispute resolution process, in an attempt to get broader input on this question. As the image has been here for several months, including before the article's featured article candidacy, I would ask that user's kindly do not remove the image while this process is ongoing.

For users coming here from the RFC page, the lengthy original discussion is above, here. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My initial opinion is that the image does a good job of quickly conveying the criticisms levelled against Pius XII. Obviously, you can disagree with those criticisms, but there's no basis to exclude them from the article--- the criticisms are widespread and definitely notable. Criticizing the criticisms does not cause the criticisms to cease to exist. The criticism is notable. The image is useful in conveying that criticism. Let it stay. --Alecmconroy 04:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about the actual criticism levelled at Pius. No one wants to remove that - it is well covered in the article. Removing the picture does not remove the criticism. The picture is inflammatory, does not correspond to the actual criticism, let alone historical facts. And finally, including the picture tips the balance in the favour of one POV, hence it is POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Criticism which is levelled against Pius XII and which can be taken serious does not state that he litarally stepped on jews together in brotherly friendship with the nazis. If wikipedia makes this statement, it misses the real status of the historian's debate.

• Furthermore, it is anything else than a neutrally formulated citation of one's point of view and thus violates wikipedia standards.

• Savidan is claiming to have made up a biography. According to standards of his own the image should be removed, because it is not biographic.

• These days, it is (or should be) politically incorrect to insult religions and religious people. But this does not seem to apply to catholics and the catholic church. This image is violating standards of religious tolerance because it whips up anti-catholic sentiment without rendering any evidence for its suggestions.

• The image would not be as appalling as it is if its suggestions were true. But they are not. It is highly biased to put this image into the article and leaving out all the citations of jewish people who say that Pius XII helped the jews as much as he could.

• This image is not appropriate for an article that wants to describe a controversial topic in a neutral point of view. UAltmann 06:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

UAltmann, you have voiced all these concerns above and they have been answered. This section is for the input of new users, although you can feel free to respond to their comments. As to your objections, I believe they all fold into each other. The purpose of the image is not summarize the status of the entire debate, but to demonstrate the most extreme of the mainstream viewpoints. It is neither inappropriate or biased to show this type of information in a biography, which should illustrate all major viewpoints, even those that some find offensive; and I believe this biography does demonstrate several important viewpoints of Pius XII. "Religious tolerance" is a non-started and not a policy of Wikipedia (I think I caught all your buzz words). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your wording shows how you aim to misunderstand on purpose. Do not teach me what the purpose of an image is or can be. I believe, that some extreme points of views are not quotable since they lack any kind of scientific seriosity. This picture is one of those. Furthermore, why do you mind me stating my opinion again here? Please save us from discussions which are not necessary and which do not focus the topic of the request for opinion. NPOV is a Wikipedia standard and thus forbids implicitly to make up religiously intolerant articles. --UAltmann 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've arrived here from the RfC, here is my 2p: The main criticism of Pius is that his 'neutrality' and refusal to condemn specific anti-Semitic laws made him effectively complicit with a monstrous evil. This is conveyed by the image, and the text of that section describes what he did and did not do, allowing readers to judge for themselves. Like it or not, the critical view is held by some people, and is a reasonable historical interpretation. The image reflects this, and removing it would be an attempt to hide or soften the condemnation of Pius. I say keep it. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Squiddy, do you realize that the image is used in the context of the Reichskonkordat and not in the context of Pius' alleged silence? Your wording sounds like the condemnation of Pius is a verdict which is not subject to appeal, a "must" and / or a logic consequence, which may not be hidden or softened. I very much object to this point of view, because Pius' silence was no real silence. By the way, Savidan, here you can see, what you and this image have already caused. People just look at the image. Go ahead and read the archives of the governments Pius adressed. Go ahead and read his x-mas address of 1942. Pius himself said of his 1942 x-mas address: "In my christmas-address, I have taken a comment on what is going on against the so-called "non-aaryans" in the german sphere of influence. It was short, however, it has been well understood." (Letter to Archbishop v. Preysing of Berlin of 30th April 1943, published in "Documentation catholique" of 2nd February, 1964). The image should be removed. UAltmann 09:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The context is the 'Holocaust' section of the WP article on Pius XII. The text next to the picture describes Pius's behaviour during the holocaust. That is its context in this article, it's what 'context' means. The image is clearly relevant to its context here. Your second point is just a misreading of what I wrote. I'm not saying that 'the condemnation of Pius is a verdict which is not subject to appeal', I'm saying that very strong condemnation of Pius exists, the image reflects that fact, and so it should be kept. You can't just wish it away. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read what's written underneath the image. The context is the Reichskonkordat. To the second point: I do believe, that the opinions of numerous other jewish people favouring Pius overweigh this one by far. And: Does it really make sense to cite every opinion there is, may it be as unscientific and unproven as can be imagined? Then you would have to quote also numerous other people saying that Pius is the true reason for Hitler's rise to power or that Pius appreciated the Holocaust. Savidan problably had good reasons to not cite those. These are existing opinions, but they are far from being citeable. The same it is with this image. It does not match the standards of an encyclopedia. UAltmann 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I came here to comment, and I have. I'm not going to respond to silly strawman arguments like the above. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture is actually titled "Reichskonkordat". This is included in the picture, but is hardly legible in the small format. I can't see where Ualtmann's comments were silly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What's silly is the argument 'if we include (insert mainstream idea here) then we'd have to include (insert wacko idea here).' The idea that Pius was pusillanimous (to the point of complicity) in his dealings with the Nazis is pretty mainstream, the idea that 'Pius is the true reason for Hitler's rise to power' is bonkers. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Squiddy, no insults, please. What you call mainstream is in fact as whacked-up as the other thesises I quoted. Please note: For such claims that even you call wacko noone less than the praised Cornwell singns responsible. Now, honestly, do we want mainstream here or some substantial information which withstands a closer look? Again: The image is an insult of everything which is holy to me, this includes also the mourning for millions of innocent jews. This image states that the church bears responsibility for the holocaust which is comparable to the Nazi's responsibility, since this image shows both the nazi and the cardinal on the same level. This is pretty much wacko, since Pius helped hiding jews from persecution and is mainly responsible for the saving of some 8,000 jews of Rome. The image must be removed! UAltmann 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This image Image:Der ewige jude.jpg is an appropriate as a illustration for Anti-semitism, but would not belong in Communism. Similarly, the Hirshberger image does not belong on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV:Undue Weight

I wonder if our new editors could comment on the issue of Undue Weight. The Hirschberger image is the only highly polemical image in the article; as such it can hardly escape the charge of biasing the article towards one viewpoint. Proponents have argued that other aspects of the article mitigate the bias:

1. The "praying pope" image is equally biased on the pro-Pius side
2. Other seemingly neutral images come from pro-Pius sources
3. The language of the caption is neutral
4. The image constitutes in itself a notable of critique of Pius that should be included.

My view is that #1 is unconvincing; #2 is unsupported by WP policy; and #3 is insufficient. But #4 is more complicated: the image might qualify for inclusion in a "Culture" section (perhaps along with Hochhuth's play), but as a source for a factual historical section it falls utterly short of the Reliable Source standard. It's not like artistic works are subject to peer review, eh?

Anyway, what do you others think?--CJGB (Chris) 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the image should be removed.UAltmann 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the image gives undue weight to one POV. And pictures do stick more than text, so it can only be balanced by another picture.

Re Chris' items above: pictures are neutral or biased because of themselves, not because of their sources. The "Praying Pope" is not biased in my book, though it is positive. However, it doesn't concern the controversial issue and is, I think, undisputed in its content.

But Chris asked "new editors", so I will shut up now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dates and fair use

Two points.

• In rewriting this article people keep forgetting to Wikify dates. All dates must be wikified. Users set their preferences to decide whether to use the American Dating format (mm/dd/yyyy) or the International one (dd/mm/yyyy). If people don't wikify dates then the system does not work and produces a mess. So every date must be written in the form [[January 10]] for example.

• Secondly, I see there is a bit of controversy over the use of an artistic image regard a Holocaust survivor's view of the Concordat. I am not expressing a view on the rightness or wrongness of using the image. However the fact is that under fairuse law we cannot use that image on the page.

Fair use allows us to use images only where no alternative is available and only in narrow relevant contexts. That means in effect that such a fairuse image is only qualified for use on

• an article about the artist
• an article about the Concordat.

It is doubtful whether legally it could be shown in an article on the Holocaust as it is not a must use image on the Holocaust, as there are alternatives. In contrast it would be a must use image in an article about the artist and would probably be OK (though even that isn't certain) in a Concordat article. (One could argue that it is a necessary visual representation. However it could be asserted in law that the article would function just fine without it — which would not be the case in an article about the artist — and therefore the article would be in a grey area.) As the image is not of Pius XII, or is not directly about him, it cannot be used here under fair use, any more than it would quality in articles about World War II or Adolf Hitler. To qualify under fair use the image must be uniquely relevant and possess a direct linkage. The only link between this image and Pope Pius is indirect. An ordained member of Pius's faith features in the image, linking the Church, which links a policy, which links the subject of the article. That link is too indirect under fair use law. So using this image here is a legal no-no. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)}

Now that the image is gone I wonder when it is put back on. Or is this the final result of this now? UAltmann 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)