Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 16

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits to the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Feel free to IM me at c6o6s6m6o on AIM. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title: Good Article

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph erroniously placed in the WWII section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Sedia gestatoria]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  intro 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Narrative Thread for Holocaust Section 

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  problematic sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Election and Coronation section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Um, I guess you didn't see my comment directly above this...savidan(talk) (e@) 21:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Way ahead of you. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hit you up

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyrights in general

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rhythm Method 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canonizations and Beatifications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Marked Change in Bias 

message: 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 Syracuse Post Standard, April 6, 1946.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Food aid? 

message: 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:   ). 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  La Popessa--proposed additions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Coat of Arms

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dates and fair use