Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 15

message: Please keep in mind that this is called "Editing Talk" and this is not a discussion board.  "X proves Y" only merits inclusion in the article if it can be verified and not merely argued.  In the realm of POV: "A wrote X proves Y" in order to be presented neutrally will include "B denies X" and/or "C wrote X does not prove Y".  But in all cases there needs to be a citation of the dispute and no original research. patsw 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About this Editing Talk page

message: :Who is Gregory S. Paul exactly? I guess he's not the paleontologist; Is he an academic or journalist? Tom Harrison Talk 18:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he almost certainly is the paleontologist.  Both his Wikipedia biography and other sources state that the paleontologist Gregory S. Paul also published a paper that argued that organized religion was negatively correlated with social well-being.  Other sources note that this paper was harshly criticized as deficient in both sociology and statistical analysis.  The paleontologist Gregory S. Paul is a regular contributor to Free Inquiry on the subject of evolution (as a critic of so-called creation science), an area where he is academically qualified.  Either the author of this paper is the same paleontologist, or there are two Gregory Pauls, both of whom contribute to the same magazine and have the same hostile stance toward Christianity.  The second explanation may be true, but multiplies entities unnecessarily.  Robert McClenon 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; That was all a big waste of time for everyone. Tom Harrison Talk 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we now delete GS Paul from the sources? Str1977 17:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, unless I missed one. Tom Harrison Talk 17:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a post in "an electic Christian blog" criticizing the anti-religion paper that says that "The Great Scandal" was by the same Gregory S. Paul.  Robert McClenon 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking a source published in a humanist publication is a waste of time. As Trotsky said to Stalin - 'I was wrong, you were right, I should apologise.' But now in that paragraph we have left in claims sourced to a Mr. Rychlak - again not a historian, but a law professor published by a partisan Catholic press (as opposed to a palaeontologist published by atheists.) And Fr. Leiber, not just a Catholic priest but the pope's own confessor/secretary - a neutral observer if ever there was one. But of course there are those unnamed 'trustworthy sources'. Am I really the only person here who sees double standards being applied?Bengalski 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I am sure that you not the only one who sees a double standard.  I am sure that EffK also does, but I do not, and I will disregard his views.  However, I do not understand the "double standard", but would be interested in hearing an explanation.  I did check the source.  Any claim that I thought that checking a source in an allegedly "humanist" publication was a waste of time is just plain incorrect.  (It is an anti-religious publication, not necessarily atheist, but anti-religious.  Erasmus, the great humanist, who was a Catholic, would not have recognized it.)  The publication did not provide biographical information about the author, although I spent a long time looking for it.  I made no references to 'trustworthy sources'.  Are there any specific claims that you want deleted because they are made by untrustworthy sources?  If so, please identify them rather than just flaming about bias.  I do not consider Gregory S. Paul to be a source who is qualified on the subject matter.  Are there other sources whom you consider unqualified?  If so, can you identify them?  Maybe we can excise them.  Robert McClenon 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Is Gregory S. Paul?

message: Since the QpQ2 claim is still in the article, I have removed the NPOV tag.  I have left the other tags in the article.  I see no need for the NPOV tag as long as all points of view, such as QpQ2, are mentioned with an opportunity for sources.  Robert McClenon 12:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm missing something, but again, who is Gregory S. Paul? Unless there is more to him than an article on a website, I do not see how he is in any sense a legitimate historical source. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I do not think that you (Tom Harrison) are missing something.  As I mentioned above, I think that Str1977's analysis discrediting the article is on the mark.  It was EffK who was citing him as a source.  I would suggest deleting both the Mowrer and the Paul footnotes as sources for QpQ2 and leave it as an unsourced allegation, to e deleted later.  Robert McClenon 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is evidently a paleontologist who is also the author of anti-religious papers.  Robert McClenon 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think try and re-write it in a style that isn't pure hagiography 'he was wonderful at this', 'he was the best at that' etc. I'll have a go at that if you like. On the other hand there may be an inherent problem that the only biographies that deal with his childhood are written by hagiographers like Sr. Marchione, in which case it may be impossible to give a NPOV account of his early years.Bengalski 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at articles on other modern popes, the paragraph on "early life" is often limited to when and where he was born, who his parents were, and when he began his study for the priesthood.  There is nothing remarkable about the childhood and youth of Eugenio Pacelli.  One would expect that a young man who later became Pope would have been studious, serious, and of good moral character.  I suggest that it be shortened to the more typical one paragraph, and a mention made of the Sr. Marchione biography/hagiography.  Robert McClenon 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest cutting the boyhood stuff down to:
Pacelli, who was of noble birth, was a grandson of Marcantonio Pacelli, founder of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, a nephew of Ernesto Pacelli, a key financial advisor to Pope Leo XII, and a son of Filippo Pacelli, dean of the Vatican lawyers. His brother, Francesco Pacelli, became a highly regarded attorney, and was created a marchese by Pius XII.  His devoted biographer Sister Margherita Marchione has provided a lengthy and flattering account of his boyhood and teenage years.
In 1894, at the age of 18, he entered the Capranica Seminary to begin study for the priesthood and enrolled at the Gregorian University.  He was ordained a priest on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1899 by Bishop Francesco Paolo Cassetta.
From 1904 until 1916, Fr. Pacelli assisted Cardinal Gasparri in his codification of canon law. Pope Benedict XV appointed Fr. Pacelli as Apostolic Nuncio to Bavaria in April 1917, and on May 13 1917, Benedict consecrated him as a bishop. This was the very day of the first appearance of the Virgin Mary (to whom Pacelli had a special devotion) to th
ree peasant children at Fatima, Portugal. Robert McClenon 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any comments, I have abridged the boyhood stuff as I had discussed.  Robert McClenon 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess you're right about this - anyway, 70... seems to have shifted his focus to animal pics for now. But I maintain we need the NPOV tag until there is a reasonable consensus that the article is NPOV on all 8 points (and any other relevant ones). I am still disputing this at the moment (though I hope we will make progress over the next few weeks), therefore there is still a POV dispute.Bengalski 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent of the animal pics was not posted by 70 but by Bengalski and is a different sort of humor.  Robert McClenon 18:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted no animal pics.Bengalski 18:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did 70 also post the cat?  That explains your comment that a black cat should be substituted?  Robert McClenon 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the four powers restated their commitments to the League of Nations, then they would not have included the United States, which had declined to join the League.  However, does this have anything to do with Eugenio Pacelli, who was negotiating the Reichskonkordat at the same time?  (Those two treaties were, interestingly, signed in the same city but different countries.)  Robert McClenon 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in that it is linked to from this page, which is how I found the error (I think it should read Germany and Italy instead of US and Japan) - there is a point being made in the reichskonkordat section that the concordat was not the first treaty to recognise Hitler's dictatorship, as the 4PP had already been signed.Bengalski 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I will look into the matter. This was included a long time ago and I think the reason was to give perspective to the criticism of the Concordat, especially in light of the often repeated claim that the Concordat was Hitler's first international treaty. Str1977 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia: Vandalism.  He did it on purpose, to be malicious.  I am not a psychiatrist and do not know why.  Robert McClenon 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I had to remove a lot of what was a lengthy section. It mostly consisted of original analysis arguing that critics of Pius came out too late and that had he spoken out against the Holocaust there would have been a backlash. This type of essay is non-encyclopedic. For all the noise in the old section, there were very few facts about what Pius actually did during the Holocaust and it was impossible to glean even what the argument was made by Cromwell which the author of that section was arguing against so rabidly. I proposed the following. The facts about what he did. The public perceptions of his performance. And the charges and (within reason) rebuttals made by mainstream historians. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Copying them from the archive, they are:
Some things I think need to be done to move towards NPOV:
#The 'QPQ' passage needs to be in. I do not see the problem with Gregory Paul as a source, and  I would like to see specific argument as to why he is not acceptable. Perhaps it would make sense to have a general discussion here about what we see as requirements for admissibility as a source. As this point is so hotly contested I will try and find other sources as well. But I ask again that people let the paragraph remain while we work on it, as it has better sourcing than much of the rest of the article.
#The Pavelic para needs to be in. Vatican support for the murderous regime in Croatia is highly controversial and should not be whitewashed.
#The childhood stuff is completely over the top - do people really think it is encyclopedic to have so much gushing praise of his canoeing skills, memory, stamp collection etc.? If I went overboard requesting sources I think it was because this part was rather overboard on unsourced praise. If all these points come from one reliable book then that would take out all the citation requests. But it would still leave a lot of guff in the article. If you're going to have so much praise shouldn't we mention some of his childhood failings? Do we really believe he didn't have a single one? 
#I am not denying that Pius was involved in saving jews, or that he has been praised by many for this. But there needs to be some balancing. For example the claim that he was personally responsible for saving 800,000 lives is really over the top, and not substantiated. Okay perhaps putting in the point that the church also saved Nazis is not the best way to do this. It would be better if we could use the talk page to work out a balanced position.
#In fact there are claims that Pius was directly involved in a policy of sheltering war criminals - notably in Unholy Trinity (Aarons and Loftus) and in the latest edition of The Real Odessa (Uki Goñi). I will write something on this for the article.
#Pius' critics link his alleged failings in relation to fascist regimes to his anti-communism. We should have something on this.  
#Perhaps if we can work out a balanced version of the holocaust debate w
e can actually cut down this section of the article - I agree with people who have complained that it is given too much prominence in a page that is about the man's whole life not just this period. A POV war involves escalation of claims on either side like an arms race, a touch of bilateral disarmament wouldn't be amiss.
#Most of all I think we need a POV dispute tag so long as any critical material is simply going to be deleted out of hand.Bengalski 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm missing something, but again, who is Gregory S. Paul? Unless there is more to him than an article on a website, I do not see how he is in any sense a legitimate historical source. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I do not think that you (Tom Harrison) are missing something.  As I mentioned above, I think that Str1977's analysis discrediting the article is on the mark.  It was EffK who was citing him as a source.  I would suggest deleting both the Mowrer and the Paul footnotes as sources for QpQ2 and leave it as an unsourced allegation, to e deleted later.  Robert McClenon 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is evidently a paleontologist who is also the author of anti-religious papers.  Robert McClenon 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think try and re-write it in a style that isn't pure hagiography 'he was wonderful at this', 'he was the best at that' etc. I'll have a go at that if you like. On the other hand there may be an inherent problem that the only biographies that deal with his childhood are written by hagiographers like Sr. Marchione, in which case it may be impossible to give a NPOV account of his early years.Bengalski 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at articles on other modern popes, the paragraph on "early life" is often limited to when and where he was born, who his parents were, and when he began his study for the priesthood.  There is nothing remarkable about the childhood and youth of Eugenio Pacelli.  One would expect that a young man who later became Pope would have been studious, serious, and of good moral character.  I suggest that it be shortened to the more typical one paragraph, and a mention made of the Sr. Marchione biography/hagiography.  Robert McClenon 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest cutting the boyhood stuff down to:
Pacelli, who was of noble birth, was a grandson of Marcantonio Pacelli, founder of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, a nephew of Ernesto Pacelli, a key financial advisor to Pope Leo XII, and a son of Filippo Pacelli, dean of the Vatican lawyers. His brother, Francesco Pacelli, became a highly regarded attorney, and was created a marchese by Pius XII.  His devoted biographer Sister Margherita Marchione has provided a lengthy and flattering account of his boyhood and teenage years.
In 1894, at the age of 18, he entered the Capranica Seminary to begin study for the priesthood and enrolled at the Gregorian University.  He was ordained a priest on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1899 by Bishop Francesco Paolo Cassetta.
From 1904 until 1916, Fr. Pacelli assisted Cardinal Gasparri in his codification of canon law. Pope Benedict XV appointed Fr. Pacelli as Apostolic Nuncio to Bavaria in April 1917, and on May 13 1917, Benedict consecrated him as a bishop. This was the very day of the first appearance of the Virgin Mary (to whom Pacelli had a special devotion) to th
ree peasant children at Fatima, Portugal. Robert McClenon 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any comments, I have abridged the boyhood stuff as I had discussed.  Robert McClenon 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess you're right about this - anyway, 70... seems to have shifted his focus to animal pics for now. But I maintain we need the NPOV tag until there is a reasonable consensus that the article is NPOV on all 8 points (and any other relevant ones). I am still disputing this at the moment (though I hope we will make progress over the next few weeks), therefore there is still a POV dispute.Bengalski 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent of the animal pics was not posted by 70 but by Bengalski and is a different sort of humor.  Robert McClenon 18:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted no animal pics.Bengalski 18:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did 70 also post the cat?  That explains your comment that a black cat should be substituted?  Robert McClenon 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the four powers restated their commitments to the League of Nations, then they would not have included the United States, which had declined to join the League.  However, does this have anything to do with Eugenio Pacelli, who was negotiating the Reichskonkordat at the same time?  (Those two treaties were, interestingly, signed in the same city but different countries.)  Robert McClenon 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in that it is linked to from this page, which is how I found the error (I think it should read Germany and Italy instead of US and Japan) - there is a point being made in the reichskonkordat section that the concordat was not the first treaty to recognise Hitler's dictatorship, as the 4PP had already been signed.Bengalski 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I will look into the matter. This was included a long time ago and I think the reason was to give perspective to the criticism of the Concordat, especially in light of the often repeated claim that the Concordat was Hitler's first international treaty. Str1977 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia: Vandalism.  He did it on purpose, to be malicious.  I am not a psychiatrist and do not know why.  Robert McClenon 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bengalski's Eight Points

message: :Maybe I'm missing something, but again, who is Gregory S. Paul? Unless there is more to him than an article on a website, I do not see how he is in any sense a legitimate historical source. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I do not think that you (Tom Harrison) are missing something.  As I mentioned above, I think that Str1977's analysis discrediting the article is on the mark.  It was EffK who was citing him as a source.  I would suggest deleting both the Mowrer and the Paul footnotes as sources for QpQ2 and leave it as an unsourced allegation, to e deleted later.  Robert McClenon 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is evidently a paleontologist who is also the author of anti-religious papers.  Robert McClenon 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Gregory S. Paul?

message: What does Bengalski propose doing about the childhood stuff?  I proposed summarizing it in one paragraph and moving the longer text into a sub-article, but I thought that there was disagreement.  Robert McClenon 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think try and re-write it in a style that isn't pure hagiography 'he was wonderful at this', 'he was the best at that' etc. I'll have a go at that if you like. On the other hand there may be an inherent problem that the only biographies that deal with his childhood are written by hagiographers like Sr. Marchione, in which case it may be impossible to give a NPOV account of his early years.Bengalski 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at articles on other modern popes, the paragraph on "early life" is often limited to when and where he was born, who his parents were, and when he began his study for the priesthood.  There is nothing remarkable about the childhood and youth of Eugenio Pacelli.  One would expect that a young man who later became Pope would have been studious, serious, and of good moral character.  I suggest that it be shortened to the more typical one paragraph, and a mention made of the Sr. Marchione biography/hagiography.  Robert McClenon 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest cutting the boyhood stuff down to:
Pacelli, who was of noble birth, was a grandson of Marcantonio Pacelli, founder of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, a nephew of Ernesto Pacelli, a key financial advisor to Pope Leo XII, and a son of Filippo Pacelli, dean of the Vatican lawyers. His brother, Francesco Pacelli, became a highly regarded attorney, and was created a marchese by Pius XII.  His devoted biographer Sister Margherita Marchione has provided a lengthy and flattering account of his boyhood and teenage years.
In 1894, at the age of 18, he entered the Capranica Seminary to begin study for the priesthood and enrolled at the Gregorian University.  He was ordained a priest on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1899 by Bishop Francesco Paolo Cassetta.
From 1904 until 1916, Fr. Pacelli assisted Cardinal Gasparri in his codification of canon law. Pope Benedict XV appointed Fr. Pacelli as Apostolic Nuncio to Bavaria in April 1917, and on May 13 1917, Benedict consecrated him as a bishop. This was the very day of the first appearance of the Virgin Mary (to whom Pacelli had a special devotion) to th
ree peasant children at Fatima, Portugal. Robert McClenon 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any comments, I have abridged the boyhood stuff as I had discussed.  Robert McClenon 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Childhood Stuff

message: No.  We do not need a POV dispute tag because critical material is deleted out of hand.  We need to ensure that critical material is not deleted unless it is found to be unverifiable.  Robert McClenon 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right about this - anyway, 70... seems to have shifted his focus to animal pics for now. But I maintain we need the NPOV tag until there is a reasonable consensus that the article is NPOV on all 8 points (and any other relevant ones). I am still disputing this at the moment (though I hope we will make progress over the next few weeks), therefore there is still a POV dispute.Bengalski 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent of the animal pics was not posted by 70 but by Bengalski and is a different sort of humor.  Robert McClenon 18:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted no animal pics.Bengalski 18:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did 70 also post the cat?  That explains your comment that a black cat should be substituted?  Robert McClenon 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 8

message: I'm guessing the article on Four-Power_Pact is wrong about the signatories. Perhaps someone who knows for certain (Str1977?) could change it.Bengalski 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the four powers restated their commitments to the League of Nations, then they would not have included the United States, which had declined to join the League.  However, does this have anything to do with Eugenio Pacelli, who was negotiating the Reichskonkordat at the same time?  (Those two treaties were, interestingly, signed in the same city but different countries.)  Robert McClenon 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in that it is linked to from this page, which is how I found the error (I think it should read Germany and Italy instead of US and Japan) - there is a point being made in the reichskonkordat section that the concordat was not the first treaty to recognise Hitler's dictatorship, as the 4PP had already been signed.Bengalski 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I will look into the matter. This was included a long time ago and I think the reason was to give perspective to the criticism of the Concordat, especially in light of the often repeated claim that the Concordat was Hitler's first international treaty. Str1977 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia: Vandalism.  He did it on purpose, to be malicious.  I am not a psychiatrist and do not know why.  Robert McClenon 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: four power pact

message: I'm going to try to clean this up and find some more scholarly sources for this. When I first read this, the opening sentence came from sttppr.blogspot.com. In case you are wondeirng, that stands for Society that thinks Pope Pius rules. That sentence had the intended effect of making it seem like no one would ever have questioned Pius's actions had it not been for some "communist newspaper". I'll note more gems here on the talk page as I find them. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to remove a lot of what was a lengthy section. It mostly consisted of original analysis arguing that critics of Pius came out too late and that had he spoken out against the Holocaust there would have been a backlash. This type of essay is non-encyclopedic. For all the noise in the old section, there were very few facts about what Pius actually did during the Holocaust and it was impossible to glean even what the argument was made by Cromwell which the author of that section was arguing against so rabidly. I proposed the following. The facts about what he did. The public perceptions of his performance. And the charges and (within reason) rebuttals made by mainstream historians. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Holocaust section

message: Another issue: The relation of some sections to one another is a bit blurry. We have the "Secretary of state", then at the same level the "concordat" and again at the same level "relations to Nazi Germany before the war" - but these all happened under Pacelli as secretary and the concordat is part of these relations. A similar issue exists with "Becoming pope" (which I intend to expand a bit) and "World War II". Any thoughts for improvement? Str1977 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning

message: I think this is the most horrid looking article and talk page I've yet seen on Wikipedia. It's a mesh of uncited statements while the talk page is a bunch of unrelated barnyard imagery. What's going on here?--T. Anthony 12:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the barnyard stuff is User:149.150.236.125 whoever that is.--T. Anthony 13:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The animals were a form of protest/humour by the IP user (70.../149...) against my inserting some material critical of Pius XII into the article. Above you can see the 8 points I gave as my concerns about the POV nature of the article. I will do some more work in the next few days on some of these. There are a lot of uncited statements in the article - which I think is particularly unacceptable for an article that has been this controversial. I think we kind of agreed that we would give a few weeks for people to find citations for them, otherwise just remove anything still unsourced. You could help with this if you like.Bengalski 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping to be less active, see my talk page, but maybe. I did support whatever banning, or whatever it was, happened to EffK though so you might not want me on this. (Although an important part of my issue with him was that I couldn't understand his writing so maybe I'd be okay by you)--T. Anthony 13:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Bengalski - You should not make deletions from this article for failure to make citations.  If such deletions were massively made from wiki, 99.99% of Wiki would be gone. The article is appropriately tagged with the "Primarysources" tag.   Deletions for failure to make citations makes sense when the great majority of an article has citations, and the remaining statements without citations are doubtable - not when an admittedly biased editor like yourself "does not like content".  As for myself, I am a recent unbiased "watcher" on the article, as I noticed the article attracts controversy.  I know virtually nothing about Pius XII.  As a neutral observer, I will readd whatever a biased editor like yourself deletes, allowing the article to mature with citations, just as every other wiki article. pat8722 14:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in fact it was someone else's suggestion that unsourced comments be deleted after a period of time. If you look at the edit history of my brief involvement you'll find my contributions have been deleted rather more than I've deleted anyone else's, and I have never deleted anything because I 'disliked content'. What I have done is put in tags calling for sources. If you are really as 'unbiased' as you claim (and I think if wikipedia was edited only by people without any prior views in any direction then 99.99% of editors would be gone), please make sure to keep your watchful eye on all participants.Bengalski 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was so impressed at having met a genuinely unbiased person I had a quick look at your talk page and contributions, and I guess your comment about being neutral was meant as a joke. Look, there's nothing wrong with having a POV on wiipedia. The point is to try and stand aside from it when editing. No one is perfect, but I genuinely think this is something I try hard to do. I tend to think being open about your POV is an important part of collaborating with good faith.Bengalski 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put some sources for a few things, I'm not sure how valid they all are. However the thing Pius XI said about "in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites", that seems pretty well documented. That newspaper the Moonies, err Unification Church it's early in the day for me, run even mentioned it.--T. Anthony 15:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I found another source for that speech which gives an original reference to the NYTimes, and moved it into footnotes - left your source in as well though. I changed the wording slightly in the para which I think makes it clearer where this was from.Bengalski 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated comment

message: As long as we are entertaining conspiracy theories and giving platforms to diatribe in the main article, there is no legitimate reason why '70's comments, albeit not wholly orthodox, should be censored, dimished or removed. That is not permissable to do on a talk page if the comments are not in bad faith.  '70's comments are his/her letigimate commentary on what is going on and do in fact add to the discussion.  There is no rule against the rule of some imagery conjoining to comments.  In fact, the pictures make the talk page a little easier to navigate and remember where particular discussions occured (kind of like sign posts or landmarks). I will shrink them by half though aware that they may be a bit too large. Thanks!
===Reply to Unrelated Comment===
The article has been the subject of content disputes for nearly a year, mostly concerned with trying to provide balance between positive and critical views of Pope Pius XII.  Bengalski is one of the editors who thinks that the article is biased toward Pope Pius XII.  Bengalski inserted the source tags for numerous unsourced statements.  I acknowledge that it makes the article ugly for the time, but it is part of an effort to improve an article that has been the subject of disputes.  It is my opinion that serious work on the article was excessively difficult until EffK was banned because he was disrupting talk pages to the point where discussion of the article was impossible.  He (EffK) insisted that he was the subject of censorship because of his content views, but what he was banned for was misuse of article talk pages, vitriolic personal attacks, and general disruption of the encyclopedia.  As Bengalski mentioned, the animal cartoons were a form of sarcastic humor.  
The reason there is a discussion of deleting unsourced information is that there are questions about whether the statements are verifiable.  The objective is to allow scholarly opinions to be presented as scholarly POV while deleting questionable statements of fact or opinions that have no scholarly basis (in which case they are original research).
Thank you for your interest in this article.  Robert McClenon 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing or shrinking '70's comments

message: The article has been the subject of content disputes for nearly a year, mostly concerned with trying to provide balance between positive and critical views of Pope Pius XII.  Bengalski is one of the editors who thinks that the article is biased toward Pope Pius XII.  Bengalski inserted the source tags for numerous unsourced statements.  I acknowledge that it makes the article ugly for the time, but it is part of an effort to improve an article that has been the subject of disputes.  It is my opinion that serious work on the article was excessively difficult until EffK was banned because he was disrupting talk pages to the point where discussion of the article was impossible.  He (EffK) insisted that he was the subject of censorship because of his content views, but what he was banned for was misuse of article talk pages, vitriolic personal attacks, and general disruption of the encyclopedia.  As Bengalski mentioned, the animal cartoons were a form of sarcastic humor.  
The reason there is a discussion of deleting unsourced information is that there are questions about whether the statements are verifiable.  The objective is to allow scholarly opinions to be presented as scholarly POV while deleting questionable statements of fact or opinions that have no scholarly basis (in which case they are original research).
Thank you for your interest in this article.  Robert McClenon 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Unrelated Comment

message: I was driving to work the other morning when one of those stupid ads came on the radio for the "See Clearly" snake oil method of improving your eyesight "naturally" (no eye glasses, no surgery, nothing but this snake oil method of improving one's vision). Then the voice-over said, "some say wearing eye glasses worsens your eye sight and makes you more dependent on glasses...try the "See Clearly" method instead." Anyway, that's when I thought of the illogic of this board insisting that if someone (Paul Gregory) says something, it has a right to be in this article. Because "someone said". (UNSIGNED)
::The voice of reason! Oliver Keenan 19:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some people say...

message: Several suggestions have been made (to me, by email) about progress on this article.  One was to revert the article to its state before EffK began editing.  I disagree.  Another was to revert the article to its state in August 2005 when the current round of edit wars began.  I disagree.  Another suggestion was to scrap the article and start over.  I disagree.  I do however agree with a suggestion that the criticisms and defense of Pope Pius XII should be summarized in one paragraph in this article, but moved into a sub-article.  Robert McClenon 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress

message: At last I've had a chance to do some more serious reading on this. I now know that EffK's 'strong' quid pro quo - relating the concordat to the enabling act, not just the self-dissolution of the Centre party - is supportd by at least some heavyweight historians. The source given by both Cornwell and our friend Gregory (no more animals please) is the late Professor Klaus Scholder of Tubingen University, in his 'The Churches and the Third Reich', vol 1, who basically devotes a whole chapter to arguing this. From what I can see, he seems to be recognised even by his critics (and I note he was a protestant) as an important authority on this area. 
Scholder himself points to earlier historical work on this: "the argument for a connection between the Reich concordat and the EA was stated and substantiated in detail for the first time by Karl Dietrich Bracher" but unfortunately I can't read Bracher as he has not been translated from German. (For those who can teh reference is 'Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung und Reichskonkordat.' in F. Gese and F.A.von de Heydte (eds.) 'Der Konkordatsprozess', Munich nd 1957-59 pp. 947-1021).
If people want I can go through Scholder's arguments and primary sources in detail. One of the main ones is Bruning's memoirs, where he says clearly that Hitler raised the concordat in the EA negotiations. Papen also is quoted as saying that the concordat was discussed as early as 30th January. There are plenty more. Scholder concludes: "those who dispute a link between acceptance of the enabling act and the conclusion of the Reich concordat definitely seem unconvincing." (p248)
People here have argued that no serious historian would argue the 'strong QPQ', only conspiracy nuts. I think Scholder rates as a serious source for the strong QPQ claim in anyone's book. Argue against the QPQ claim by all means, and cite contrary interpretations, but it is time to stop dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory'.Bengalski 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Klaus Scholder?

message: Following discussions on John Paul II and Benedict XVI surely the style box should not appear here?
Suggestion - as it will apply to other Popes - a "style box" for those (whether or not Popes) moving through the process of saint maiking - eg "date made venerable, by whom, on what grounds, date made saint ditto etc"? 
Jackiespeel 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style box

message: I've renamed the archives, as each one should have exactly the same address as the page that it's an archive of, plus /Archive01 (or something like that) at the end. When they're done like that, each archive has an automatic link back to the main talk page at the top. I've also made two new red links for the next two archives. AnnH ♫ 11:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I don't know much about this but the miracle of the sun Pius saw in 1950 - was this the same miracle as the one in 1917? Currently the link directs to the page on fatima which calls it 'an event of 1917'. Do we need to explain the difference here/expand on the 'miracle of the sun' page to show it was also an event of 1950 or what? How does it work - was it the very same event only seen by different people at different times (miracles are atemporal?), two examples of the same type of miracle...?Bengalski 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miracle of the sun

message: From [[WP:NOT}}: "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Should the quote section be moved to wikiquote with a link from the page? I've seen this approach on other pages.Bengalski 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little more anti-quotation that most, but I think very few editors would disagree with the transwikiing of those quotations. Let's just say that Pius's apologists didn't want to let any praise go unnoted, even from unnotable people. It just wasn't very encyclopedic. Find a source that talks about the overall perception of Pius in the Jewish community rather than an extensive list of pro- and con- quotes. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wikiquote

message: The paragraph beginning: "...preceded by the Four-Power Pact Hitler had signed in June 1933. At the time,"
and ending "...and is not a broad declaration of regimental or ideological approval."
is repeated twice in the article. Camillus (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated paragraph

message: The 'fact' tag I'd placed was removed from this sentence: 
Between the German Concordat's signing in 1933 and 1939, Pope Pius XI made nearly sixty formal complaints to the Nazi government, which were drafted by Pacelli but which show only a gradual realisation of the gravity of the Nazi threat and Nazi misuse of the concordat[citation needed].
The edit summary was: removed yet another {fact} - mit brennender sorge is a clear indictment of misuse of the concordat)
That may be so, but it isn't a reference for the claim I tagged. MBS doesn't say that PPXI had made nearly sixty formal complaints, drafted by Pacelli, nor does it tell us that there was only a gradual realisation of the Nazi threat.
It would be nice to get all the fact tags out of the article I agree - but the way to do it is track down the sources, or if a claim is in fact unverifiable then it should be removed. Once again I appeal to editors of this article who are knowledgeable on these points to help find the references we need, or help identify - as people have done so readily in the past - unverifiable claims that should be deleted.Bengalski 11:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted - on re-reading the sentence (just before you added the above), I saw that it was referring to the "sixty formal complaints", which, you're quite right, needs a citation. I will look for a verifiable citation - although I don't imagine that MBS "dropped from the sky" -it is obvious (at least to me) that a "gradual realisation" did take place, but the fact tag should stay until this can be verified. Camillus (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on sourcing

message: What are you up to Str1977? You just undid all my recent work - including deleting unnecessary fact tags, putting a book referred to into the references section. I guess your intention was to remove this para put in by Giovanni: 
One effect of the actions of Pope Pius XII through the pursuit of a concordat, was that it assisted in the legitimization of Hitler's Nazi regime. On the significance of the Reichskonkordat, professor Guenter Lewy, author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, wrote: "There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad."
Apart from balancing the numerous interpretations and pro-Pius spins in the article from Catholic historians, this is actually one of the better sourced quotes in the article. See above for plenty of completely unsourced and questionable quotes - why not take some of them out? I am reverting - I don't want to get into an edit war, but what you did was just POV editing and destructive to boot. If you're unhappy with this I think we should ask for mediation rather than start a revert war.Bengalski 13:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article on Poland, the Holocaust or the Second World War. None of that is of more than passing relevance in a biographical article. On Wikipedia that stuff goes into the relevant article on Poland, the Holocaust and the Second World War.  That is what the links are for, to let the reader go elsewhere to find specific background information. This article is already overloaded with agenda-pushing from both sides. Irrelevant detail that belongs somewhere else will simply be deleted. The whole article needs severe pruning, not yet more irrelevant agenda-pushing stuff being added in. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by Str1977 

message: This article uses two conflicting forms of footnotes. It uses  and . The number systems are all over the place, with two footnote number 1s. The two systems need to be merged. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been fixing everyone else's screw-ups for the last week. Its time some of the combatants on this page fixed the glaring layout errors rather than fight POV battles over an overly long text.  I've got enough clean ups to do elsewhere. You do something besides talk for once. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article uses two conflicting footnote notations 

message: This is one more reason to keep the dispute tag. I find it ridiculously unencyclopedic. The list is clearly intended to promote the Point of View that Pius was in no was complicit in the Holocaust and should probably be canonized for his actions during World War II. Would be better suited in a rebuttal pamphlet than an encyclopedia. I think this is another example of a lengthly list of quotations added to prove a point which would be better served on Wikiquote. Rather than doing the leg work of assembling this beast, it would be better to cite a credible source, say a biographer, who could give a more global view of the perception of Pius's actions. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long list of Jewish leaders who praised him 

message: I'm going to merge this section into the other sections where it belongs. Anything I don't merge I'll paste to the talk page. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it into the Reischkonkordat, Becoming Pope, Relationship with Nazi Germany and Encyclicals section. I think that all will agree that I preserved all the content although I did edit the text for succinctness and non-repetition. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (pre-World War II) 

message: I removed the  tag. I think I removed all the links to blogs, etc. The  may have to stay for a while. If me and Str1977 can resolve the last three issues remaining (see above) and whatever problems he may have with my recent edits, I think the  tag can be removed too. The article still needs work, but I think its very close to not having to be disputed. Also, as we add references perhaps the blanket  tag can be downgraded only to the problematic sections. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Downgraded   to   savidan(talk) (e@) 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved    to the "Later life and death" section, as all other sections have either had references added or had the disputed content moved to the talk page. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed   . See above. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got around to finding sources for the "Later life" section, so I removed the . The article is now completely referenced, I believe. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tags 

message: Currently (in case you haven't noticed) there is a "References" section and a "Footnotes" section. I'm going to be converting the footnotes to references and unifying the sections. References seem to be becoming the gold standard on Wikipedia and and its much easier to add new references to an article than to add footnotes. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References formatting 

message: Per Wikipedia:verifiability I am cutting some of the remaining unsourced claims from the article. I'll put them here - if someone finds sources for them we can move them back.Bengalski 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unsourced claims 

message: http://i1.tinypic.com/v6hxyb.jpg
Copied from:
Actes et Documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la seconde guerre mondiale
--EPR 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divini Redemptoris - Lend/Lease