This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hallo guys, I found a problematic passage. Here it is:

>>In March 1939, Pius obtained 3,000 visas for European Jews who had been baptized and converted to Catholicism to go to Brazil, although two-thirds of these were later revoked for "improper conduct"<<

The issue is not the facts (though these are unclear) but the wording.

1. Were these Jews actually baptized or did they just receive (fake) baptism certificates.
2. Were these baptisms a scheme organized by clergy or by the Jews without (in general) the clerics's knowledge. I suppose it was not the latter. Or were these just 3,000 baptized Jews, baptized over the years.
3. "revoked" is the most problematic word - what was revoked? You cannot revoke a baptism and certainly the church (and the wording implies the church as the actor) will not do such a thing. Certainly continued adherence to Judaism is no reason ... it might not even be apostasy. However, maybe they were declared invalid as the baptized Jews had never intended to become Christian. Maybe the fake certificates (see point 1) were revoked.

Please, may someone in the know speak up.

PS. I think that the POV tag was very well placed on top of the whole article. As Savidan very well knows, there are POV problems throughout the article, as he wouldn't let myself tackle them when the article was on the front page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, these were Jews who had been previously baptized (not all simultaneously) who recieved visas and alter the visas were revoked because they continued to practice. The JVC says the same.

As for the POV tags, it is only really appropriate for the section with the image. If you would like to contest the neutrality of other sections, state specific problems and proposed solutions on the talk page, and wait for some other editors to reply before placing a POV-section tag in the appropriate section. It's OK for the picture because there is an ongoing discussion. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 22:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, the POV tag says, that the neutrality of the article is being discussed. Removing the tag does not wipe the discussion away. Editings are not allowed unless we have consensus with you. But it is almost impossible to have a consensus with you. How can you say that there is no discussion when you celebrate an ongoing editwar all over this place? I now will put the tag back on. In my eyes, the image affects the neutrality of the whole article, not only of one single sectio. As I let the image there, please let the tag there, ok?

As for the jews: Brazil government was complaining about having to receive all the jews and they feared an 'overjudaization'. I do not know whose idea it was to baptize all the jews, but it soon became apparent, that it was easier to obtain a visa to south america if one was catholic. A lot of the jewish refugees made their way to south america by the help of the vatican. If somebody can revoke a visa, it is the one who issued it. In this case, it would be Brazil, not the Vatican! This is a problem of wording throughout the whole article, that it is often grammatically unclear, where the relation to the predicate is. UAltmann 05:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize until now that the image is gone. The tag I will leave there until my critizism with the citation of v. Weizsäcker's report is taken care of (see featured article review, link on top of this page). UAltmann 06:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but let me try to gather the results of my query:

• These Jews were genuinely bapized Jews who then were given visas to protect them.
• Many of these Jews continued to practice Judaism.
• It is the visa (I only spotted the wrong plural just yet, I will correct it immediately) that were revoked. By whom were they revoked and when?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As you said, a baptism is always genuine. Besides, I do not know anything about a wrong conduct concerning the baptisms or an alleged faked baptism. The Gov'ts of both Argentina and Brazil in fact complained about the immigration of jewish people. I do not know whether they related their complaints also to the baptized people.

The Vatican could not have revoked those visa since he did not issue those. Those were issued by the brazilian authorities following a request of the Vatican. But I doubt that 'continuing to practice Judaism' was a legal reason to revoke visa in Brazil. That makes the whole passage indeed so problematic, that it should be taken out and reentered later on, when circumstances are clear.

But let's ask the one who has put in the citation... UAltmann 10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Another question: When were the visa revoked? Were the Jews already in Brazil? What happened to them? Were there deported or what? The relevance of the "revoking passage" depends on these consequences.

I don't know who put the passage into the article, but if he doesn't reply, we will have to do our best to reword the passage. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another source. The Jews were not deported (as far as I can tell), but the remaining visas (more than 2,000 of the original 3,000 which had been approved) were revoked. The original was correct, but I can see why it could be interpreted as unclear. I replaced it with slightly more verbose but much more specific statement of the situation. Is this to your approval? savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I very much appreciate your input on this and am quite content with the new version. It tells us what happened, who did what when etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Since there is more than one sentence now, it delivers the information necessary. UAltmann 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more for the bad guy:

"In April 1939, after the submission of Charles Maurras and the intervention of the Carmel of Lisieux, Pius XII ended his predecessor's ban on Action Française, a virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Communist organization.[40][41]"

This is included in the Holocaust section for reasons that are beyond me.

I agree that this makes more sense in the WWII section. Action Francaise ultimately proved a vital ally of the Vichy government in France but as far as I know does not have any direct connection to the Holocaust. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 19:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No it makes sense in a pre-war, pre-Holocaust section. Anything else would be POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Being as Pius was elected Pope almost immediately before the war broke out, it doesn't make sense to have a separate section covering only a few dozen days of his papacy (for which there are very few sources, ADSS doesn't cover much pre-war stuff). In my judgement the WWII section should cover Pacelli's foreign policy in both the pre-war and war period (until hit hands the baton to the post-war section). Meanwhile, his theological policies are in the Papacy section. The section title of the "World War II" sectin could be changed to make clear that it covers his foreign policy in the build up to war period, but in my judgement it is unecessary. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it is difficult to include, but including it under either "Holocaust" or "war" implies a non-existing endorsement of either anti-semitism or the Vichy regime. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since nobody, not even Pius, could know in advance that Action Francaise later on would support the Vichy-regime. The extra - article about the Action Francaise tells more about a classification as a fascist movement, but there does not seem to be consensus. The extra article tells hardly anything about anti-semitism of Action Francaise, but this does not mean that Action Francaise was not anti-semitic, I just don't know.

I have often criticized, that anti-semitism (rejection of jews for reasons of racial ideology) should not be messed up with anti-judaism (rejection of jews for reasons of religion). The latter phenomenon was hardly any better than anti-semitism itself, but anti-judaism did not include the demand for the extinction of the 'jewish race'. In the catholic church, anti-judaism was a widespread phenomenon in the times before Pius XII . Pinchas Lapide describes this in a very direct way without trying to justify the protagonists of catholic anti-judaism. But this differenciation of these two terms has hardly been made in literature which did not deal with the catholic church.

Since Action Francaise was a monarchist movement which considered catholic faith as part or basis of their ideas, it could be worth a check if in the time before collaboration they really represented anti-semitic ideas in the sense of demand for extinction of the 'jewish race'. Only then it could be described like this in this article, otherwise I would leave the dispute about it to the extra - article Action Francaise. UAltmann 06:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely call the AF "anti-semitic" (with the caveat mentioned by Ualtmann) and at least in the end "fascist".

Their anti-semitism was of the anti-Dreyfussard brand that was not uncommon among French Catholics.

Maurras himself was an atheist and I think this is what got the AF banned under Pius XI. Hence, when he submitted, the Pius XII lifted the ban. Maybe not a wise move, but then again, Canossa wasn't either.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So the bottom line here is that you want to add the word "fascist"? It seems like we agree that they were both anti-communist and anti-semetic (certainly more accurate that "anti-judaic" if the latter term implies opposition limited to theological issues). savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph to the World War II section. I wonder if the word "submission" in the first sentence is unnecessary jargon. Could it be replaced by something more accessible, like "returned to Catholicism"?

(I'll work up a new draft on Pius' Children when I'm feeling less lazy.)-- CJGB (Chris) 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The next sentence:

"The Pope employed Professor Almagia in 1939 to work on old maps in the Vatican library, thus immunising him from the Fascist anti-Semitic laws."

seems relevant but is quite cryptic. What was the aim of these studies? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not add this sentence. It was added by another user (whose name escapes me at the moment) while this article was on the main page. I would support removing the "thus" clause of that sentence. From what I understand the benefit of employing Jews like Almagia wasn't that it gave them legal protection but that they had been fired from their previous post for being Jewish. Is there an article about Almagia on Wikipedia? savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I see. I wrongly thought the Pope wanted to immunise himself (by that research) from any Fascist laws, so that he could use this immunity to protect the Jews. It wasn't clear to me that Almagia was a Jew. If your take is true, this should be mentioned as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'll see if I can find another source, other than Defamation (which is not very rigorous in including many specific details from primary sources), which mentions Almagia specifically. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate that. I have ammended by last post for clarity's sake. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

UAltmann, why do you continue to place a dispute tag over the entirity of the article? You have stated here that the Hirshberger image "makes the entire article POV" but it has been removed. Only specific sections should be disputed and then only with specific rationales on the talk page. The goal should not be to propagate dispute tags for all eternity, but to fix specific POV problems with the article. I would appreciate it, if, as a sign of good faith, you would remove this tag yourself and instead only use the {POV-section} tags, and only after establishing the basis for the dispute.

Str, you placed one in the RK section, with the minimalist edit summary of "scholder." The fact that this section cites this author is not enough to justify such a tag. You'll notice that Scholder's (and others') main criticism of the RK—that it granted more international legitimacy to the Nazis—is not even mentioned in this article. In fact, as far as I can tell, this section focuses only on Pacelli's role in the negotation of the Concordat and Pacelli's role in the protesting of violations of the Concordat. In my opinion, if there is anything else in this section which has only to do with the RK generally, and not to Pacelli specifically, it should be removed. So, what is the basis for your tag? savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Savidan,

I would very much appreciate it if you would not time and again try to remove tags on technicalities. Some time ago, you removed mine because the article was on the front page (where it never belonged), now you say that the word "Scholder" alone is not enough. Well, it was only the beginning and now you have more.

The same with Ualtmann - what he stated doesn't contradict retaining the tag - you quoted him saying >>the Hirshberger image "makes the entire article POV"<<. That doesn't mean that the image was the only problem - only that if the article was perfectly balanced, the image alone would suffice for the tag. As things stand, the article has loads of other problems, some POV, some simply quality (Usually I don't start three section in one day). Now, Ualtmann has stated above that he wants to sort out some Weizsäcker issue - at the moment I am not familiar with that, so I cannot possibly comment. But at least let us deal with the case and try to brush it off.

Back to the Scholder issue. If that point is not included, that's bad, because it is actually consensus that Hitler gained some, well not legitimacy as he didn't have a need for that, but respectabilty. Debates about that will only deal with how important this was (historical) and wether the Holy See can be blamed for this (moral) - I personally don't think it can be blamed at all, as there were more than one reason that made a Concordat vital, especially with someone like Hitler in power. But I digress. I have stated the problematic passages above. Some have potential to be saved, but others are just plainly POV-pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep all the Scholder discussion in one place above. The RK section tag is fine, until we get this Scholder issue sorted out above, but a generic tag at the very beginning of the article (and the vague and unspecific disputes which accompany it) are a little unreasonable. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, I did not endorse that universal tag. What I did is object your "battering against tags based on technicalities" (sorry, if that sounds harsh but I am a bit heated right now (not because of things here) and cannot put it in another way). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case I apologize. My intention is simply to isolate and resolve disputes. The nature of this topic is such that there is no point in engaging in broad arguments without a firm grounding in specific parts of the article at hand. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is the sign of good faith, since the article is making real progress. UAltmann 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad were finally over the Hirschberger debate - neither side's arguments were entirely vindicated, which is probably a good thing in the interests of us working together.

I've reviewed the paragraph on the Corriera della Sera/Napolitano/Andrea Tornielli controversy, and I'm concerned that the current text is an incomplete representation of its cited source ( "Pius' Children" in the American online). In particular, I think it should note the following points:

• The memo was apparently written by someone on Roncalli's staff (that is, inside the French Catholic Church).
• The memo was circulated in the French Catholic hierarchy.
• The memo was a response to (which I read as, a re-interpretation of) a letter from the Secretary of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs at the Vatican, Monsignor Domenico Tardini.
• Tardini's letter differs markedly from the unsigned French memo "in tone, language, and content" (according to the article's author).
• In particular, Tardini disavows any intention of withholding children from surviving relatives - as opposed to organizations with no legal entitlement to custody.

The background of the issue seems to be requests from various Jewish agencies to take custody of ethnically Jewish orphans, baptised as Catholics, with the intent of resettling them in Palestine to be raised by Jewish families.

Subtextually, the current version appears set up Roncalli as a hero for resisting the Vatican's policy about Jewish orphans, whereas, according to the source article, Roncalli was actually resisting pressure from within the French Church.

Minor points:

• There's no need to mention the locatin of the archive where the document was found.
• "Baptised as Catholics" would sound better to me than "baptised by Catholics", since the point (in the Church's view) was that these were Catholic children.
• In view of Pius' apparent vindication on this issue, we shouldn't give Foxman the last word. In any case, Foxman's biographical details are off-topic here, unless we're trying to imply bias on his part (which we shouldn't do).

Also, this column by John Allen in the National Catholic Reporter is worth looking at. Some details differ from the account I've given above based on the American online article.-- CJGB (Chris) 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's another one of those problematic issues that has crept into the article over the last six months. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The first set of bullet points you make don't appear to contradict the current text in the article at all, although it could be clarified on thse issues without (my) objection. There doesn't seem to be any harm in citing the actual document—an extra citation certainly doesn't warrant a neutrality issue. I'm fine with the as/by change if you want to make it. I don't see it as giving Foxman the "last word"--his quote on this issue was the center of the controversy at its height so should be included, if you want to change the order that's fine. I think his biographical details were extremely relevant to his percieved credibility (or lack thereof) in this controversy. As it could be interpreted either way, I don't think it implies bias. I think you're right that this contrvoersy has largely "blown over" and I thought the article reflected that; I'd be fine with any changes you want to make in this regard to make that clearer. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 00:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, but does anyone feel that this is worthy of a subarticle. There seems to be a lot to say about this controversy that doesn't have to do with Pius (since, as it turned out, he may not have even known about the memo). If so , the summary here could cover the controversy as it related to Pius (notably, cropping up while his cause for sainthood was in the motion). It seems like the issue of what to do with Jewish children after the war was a wider issue. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Savidan, sorry I haven't followed up on this. I've been rather busy. I agree with most of your points, and will do something about them when I can - hopefully this week. In the mean time, I'd rather keep the NPOV flag there.-- CJGB (Chris) 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I got you to respond! From what I understand you have not identified POV problems in the text, but merely said that you plan to rewrite this section to make it more clear. I would ask you to at least identify some more specifics so I could try to fix this if you insist on keeping a flag up. Please keep in mind that these templates are meant to be temporary. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 19:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV problem seems pretty glaring, at least to me. As it stands, the section could easily be read as asserting that Pius wanted withhold Jewish orphans from their families. That's a serious enough violation of NPOV (not to mention basic accuracy) that unwary readers should be warned to take it with a grain of salt, until the passage is corrected. Am I neglectful for not dealing with this? Well, I have other fish to fry in the non-WP world.-- CJGB (Chris) 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely does not say that. It only states the facts and attributes them. Fact: Corriere della Sera published the memo. Fact: Foxman and others used this to call for a halt on Pius's canonization. Fact: Those scholars found that the memo had originated in France and not the Vatican. The article does not make any inferences using these facts, nor should it, about what "Pius wanted" or what anyone's intentions were. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between could easily be read as asserting (my wording) versus asserts. I agree that all the facts are correct. But facts are never bare facts: like it or not they always give rise to implications. In this case, I feel that many will draw implications that are factually wrong. So it needs to be cleaned up.-- CJGB (Chris) 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean it up then. Let's see what you are proposing. It's only three sentneces, all of which you agree are true, so let's see what you think would be a more neutral wording. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 02:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to sort out the problems with this section:

• I have shortened the personal info about Foxman and moved it into a subclause.
• I have restored the proper order, as Foxman reacted to the news reports.
• I have made some stylistic changes to the first sentence, separating an introduction (document, date, subject) from the actual contents, also including the important fact that it concerned orphans.
• This latter fact, along with the the alternative fate of the children, I have also included into the findings of the two Italian scholars.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that its important that Foxman had a custody fight after the war between his Polish nanny and his parents. That experience definitely is relevant to his reaction to the memo. The point is not just that he was baptised. I'm ok with your other changes. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 13:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to including this, as long as it can be kept short as a sub clause. We shouldn't change the subject from the actual controversy to the personal history of some participants. But a sub clause is okay. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Chris can comment soon so that me can remove the POV tag from this section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Chris has not followed my invitation to comment, I assume that he doesn't object to the current version. Hence, I wholeheartedly agree with Savidan removing the POV tag. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Purple? Emerald green? Don't let's fall out over this, Savidan. The point is, it wasn't nice and he exploded. Much the same happened to Henry VIII, I understand, and there was a lot more of him to be spread about. Gore Vidal quotes an unnamed 'viewer' of the corpse. Not enough evidence for a law court, I admit, but not bad for Wikipedia. And look at the photo on this page. Is it me or does his face have a distinctly greenish hue? Anyway, keep up your hard work, Savidan. I'm sure when you pass through the pearly gates, Pius XII will be the first to shake you by the hand! -- OhNoPeedyPeebles 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the POV tag as long as a minority view like Scholder is presented as historical consensus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there really is a consensus on this issue so I don't know how fair it is to call Scholder the minority. Irregardless, Scholder's opinion is never stated except when attributed to him. There should be a link to his article (if there is one), and readers should be able to go to that article and figure out what the deal is with his work. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is consensus on this point as no historian I know of, agrees with Scholder. I studied the events of Hitler's rise, including the Enabling Act and the Concordat, and Scholder wasn't even mentioned to us. Only EffK brough him up, finally coming up with one historian somewhat agreeing with his point. If you remember, I uploaded the review of Scholder's book (I don't think it's still online but I can upload it again) and this very point was criticized in the review. Things haven't changed. Scholder's notable in Wiki-terms only because he happens to agree with EffK's conspiracy theories (at least somewhat, as Scholder is no fruit cake). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember very well the review (that you emailed to me). It does criticize Scholder's book, but it does not touch upon any matter currently in this section. As I explain below, the scope of this section is limited to Pacelli's role, for which Scholder is a valuable source. If you would like to augment this with other sources, that's fine. "EffK's compiracy theories" are no longer included, because this article does not contain any content about the impact or importance of the RK. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 21:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So there's nothing controversial in there:

• One argue whether Scholder's term "great goal" needs to be attributed to him, if it's not controversial.
• "According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately." Brüning refused to do so, replying that Pacelli "mistook the political situation in Germany and, above all, the true character of the Nazis." - that is purely Scholder in this form, as Brüning's memoirs are deemed not very reliable sources by most historians (I think that was touched upon in the review).
• "Pacelli again advised the Centre Party to work with the Nazis in a coalition, despite the official condemnation of Nazism by the German bishops at the time. He told Bavarian envoy Ritter: "it is to be hoped and desired that, like the Centre Party and the Bavarian Peoples' Party, so too the other parties which stand on Christian principles and which now also include the National Socialist party, now the strongest party in the Reichstag, will use every means to hold off the cultural Bolshevizing of Germany, which is on the march behind the Communist Party." - again purely Scholder.
• According to Klaus Scholder, such a concordat was impossible prior to the rise of the Nazis because the Catholic parties in the Weimar Republic could not overcome Protestant and socialist opposition.[15] - this prefers to use an overstatement by Scholder for the actual facts (that were once included, though I think that was in some other article).
• And here, most importantly: "Centre Party chairman Ludwig Kaas (a priest and associate of Pacelli) agreed to support the Enabling Act, which required a constitutional amendment and gave Hitler dictatorial powers, in exchange for a Reich concordat with the Vatican.[17][18]" - this is the Scholder thesis, not even attributed but stated a fact, despite not being accepted by most historians. If this is not POV-pushing what is.
• "One of Hitler's key conditions for agreeing the concordat had been the dissolution of the Centre Party, which occurred on 6th July." - true but again POV-pushing, as it does not tell us that the Centre Party dissolved itself, much to Pacelli's disatisfaction. It neither tells us of the actual state of the party (doomed anyway).

Apart from these points, the section is uncontroversial, yes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Bruning's memoirs? More importantly, what needs to be said in this article about Bruning's memoirs as opposed to in his own article? This may be a fact utilized by Scholder, but as used in the article, it's a primary source. I agree with the rest of your points, and I'll make these changes in a second; let me know where we need to go from there. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Historians doubt the truth of Brunings memoirs concerning this point, since Brunings memoirs from the times after his chancellorship are marked by the attempt of personal justification of his policies. In addition to that, he was quite cross with Kaas at least after 1931. It is clear that the initiative for the Reichskonkordat came from the German Government and not from the Vatican. Hitler had - for the Vatican quite unexpectedly - described the christian churches as the "very fundament of the moral life of our nation" and offered the granting of certain rights to the churches. Considering the recent attacks of the SA on a convention of the Kolping-foundation at munich, Cardinal Faulhaber valued this as an unexpected offer for peace, it would make me wonder if Pacelli would have thought in a very much different way. Of course the Vatican wanted the Reichskonkordat, but for sure not as a result of the misinterpretation of the personality of Hitler and his nazis. This thesis contradicts all recent findings on both the reichskonkordat and Pius/Pacelli and certainly cannot be kept up. UAltmann 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

UAltman is right, except that Brüning was cross with Kaas after 1933, not before. Brüning tries to justify his politics and, more importantly, writes from memory in exile in the mid-thirties. And in details his account has been demonstrated to be unreliable. I have posted a short assessment of this, taken from Ludwig Volk, a long time ago during the EffK dispute but it is buried in some archive and I cannot find it. However, the reference I found: it is from "Volk, Reichskonkordat, page 81, footnote 115".

Hitler's reference was indeed not merely an offer of peace (though Faulhaber might have said that) but an offer of "cooperate or face the consequences", and who could have justified not trying to reach an agreement after such speeches.

Yes, Hitler wanted the Concordat as a means of eliminating political Catholicism and of gaining diplomatic credibility. But he would have done away with the Centre Party anyway and hence Pacelli did bargain it away, though it is documented that he was dismayed that the party dissolved so early. What is not documented is any insinuation on Scholder's part that any other clerics was involved in the passing of the Enabling Act except Kaas. Kaas might have had some concordat perspective when he cast the vote, but for any involvement by anyone else, most of all, Pacelli, there is no evidence whatsoever. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all somewhat fascinating, but if the proposed remedy is that Bruning's memoirs simply not be used as a source at all, I am unpersuaded. A lengthy explanation of this could be added to Bruning's article. As long as the points that UAltmann is making are made in a scholarly source, then I wouldn't be opposed to the inclusion of some context for Bruning as a source. I would prefer if the secondary sources cited for this are as on point as possible about the only quote used. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Using arguments like the latter one of your's ("Why not use a source since it is there") instead of critically questioning the existence of such a source, you make just about the same mistake like Scholder himself. Scholder with his thesises stands absolutely alone, this is what Str1977 is saying all the time. But obviously, this is no reason for you to question your point. I cannot force you to question your point, this is something you must do yourself. For the time being, the NPOV tag remains there. -- UAltmann

Savidan, no one is proposing that Brüning's memoirs should not be used at all. I have always been of the opinion that every source should be used in some way. Discarding a source is not okay IMHO. Historians use Brüning, but they are aware of his deficencies. And in the end, we don't use sources here on WP, we report the scholarship of others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So, just to make sure, you are OK with the current version? savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I wasn't. It talked more about all kinds of things than about the concordat. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with all the stuff you added in your last edit, but not with the removal of the Bruning memoirs, as I thought we had just agreed against. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no agreement. I was speaking in general about using the source. But we must leave that to the historians.

Re Brüning, it is problematic that now his account, his view stands alone along with his remark about Pacelli's supposed "mistaking the Nazis", quite apart from the anecdotal character of that passage.

I didn't see that I repeated anything. Rather I added a lot of narrative that was missing, not speaking of the actual content of the concordat (but that might be better of in the main article). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can solve the problem by not quoting but narrating that episode. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But rereading that passage now, I must say that it is simply bogus, at least in this form. Either Brüning blundered, or Scholder, or the one who put it here. Let me explain:

" Heinrich Brüning, leader of the Catholic German Centre Party and Chancellor of Germany met with Pacelli on August 8, 1931. According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats"

Now, Brüning never had a coalition with the Social Democrats, that ended in 1930, leading to Brüning's appointment. It was Brüning's and others' failure to get the SPD on board in 1930. Instead we had new elections in which the Grand Coalition lost the majority.

On the way I came up with a possible explanation. If this indeed is accurate, then the two were talking about the government coalition in Prussia, where the Weimar Coalition lasted until Papen's Preußenschlag of 1932. But the text currently gives the impression that it is the Fedral government, especially by the reference to the concordat. Prussia already had a concordat, so I can't see how this scheme could have worked.

Something is cooking here and it's not smelling nice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been away travelling for a while - shame to see this going backwards to where we were some months ago. I will re-insert information sourced to Scholder which I put in (not EffK) earlier. "no historian I know of, agrees with Scholder" - Str if you are going to make claims like this you need to back them up with sources. What you may or may not know of isn't a strong enough ground to delete a claim made by a respected historian. Can you give sources saying that Scholder's is a minority view? Or at least a list of historians criticising his view? And sources to show that it is such a rogue view that it shouldn't just be qualified by stating the majority opinion but excised from the article altogether? Bengalski 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I put this section back to the featured article version of 3 July, with one amendment - Str is right that Scholder's view on the 'quid pro quo' was not attributed but stated as a fact, I changed that. If Str can get reputable sources with different views (as I asked however many months ago - see archives where we first discussed Scholder) then let's talk about how we balance them out - but find the sources first please, otherwise this discussion just spins in circles. Bengalski 08:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Scholder review I posted? Scholder never was accepted in regard to this issue. Rather than asking me to prove a negative, how about you providing confirmation. Quite apart from your ignoring the last point I raised here and your flat out reverting back to an earlier version. And not, there is no "featured article version of 3 July", or else there is also a "featured article version of 26 September". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you post or link to the review again? Who was it by? Savidan's comment above suggests it doesn't discuss the 'quid pro quo' point. Bengalski 08:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it, Ben? Are you asking these questions or are you revert warring. Simply staying away doesn't give you the right to revert the article back to July. You will have to base yourself on the existing version. I have not reverted back to January after being a bit negligent of this article and during that time some horrid, horrid POV pushing entered here (as you yourself pointed out: your version stated opinion as fact but it wasn't you who changed it.)

The review, taken from American Historical Review, Vol. 83, pp.1285-1287, can be found here: [1], and here: [2]. (The first link only provides the reviewed book's title so you might as well skip it.)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for re-posting the review Str. Yes it does address the quid pro quo claim and criticise Scholder on this. You have established that your reviewer disagrees with Scholder. You have not established that there is a 'consensus' or even a 'majority' of 'historians' ranged up against him. So I do not think you (and Musical Linguist) are entitled to keep removing his point. Scholder is a reputable and important source (your review while calling his book 'flawed' also says it is the best available work on its subject), even if you disagree with him, and even if particular reviewers disagree with him. So once again I'll put him back in, and ask once again - please do not remove sourced, attributed information. If you want to report contrary views from other important sources - e.g. other historians of similar status - then find them and let's do that - but not just censor the one you disagree with. Bengalski 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, if you claim that Scholder is not alone, then you should be the one to give sources. As we say that Scholder is alone, of course then there are no others supporting him, thus there are no other sources. Why give sources as there are none. Therefore, Scholders view cannot be put as historical consensus, since it takes at least two persons to come to a consensus. I shall undertake a revert during the next days since the latest version before your changes was a result of a long discussion. Take a look into the archives. -- UAltmann 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I don't think I have to educate you on the importance and relevance of book reviews in academia, do I? Sure, no review is infallible but this is the process of peer reviews. And if parts of Scholder were disputed when he first published then, the burden of proof lies with you to show that he later found acceptance. To my knowledge he hasn't. Finally, please stop revert warring and accept that we are no longer in July. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One book review does not equal a 'consensus' or 'the majority'. The date has nothing to do with it - we disagreed on this then, we still disagree on it now. Your arguments haven't changed since we first went round on this issue, and you don't seem to have found any new sources. Bengalski 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No Str, you're not just saying Scholder is alone - you're saying there is a 'consensus' or 'majority' ranged up against him. If so, why is it so hard to get quotes from other historians contradicting him? Please do not 'undertake a revert'. What you're saying is: I find a notable expert source A who makes an important and relevant claim X, and stick it in with appropriate attribution; you disagree with X and allege that it is a minority view, though you don't provide evidence to back that up; you are entitled to remove X. That can't be wiki-right. Nor does having a recent discussion in which you convinced (ground down?) Savidan into going along with it (against earlier and even longer discussions we had before) make it right either. The rules still apply - we should have respect for reputable sources, and a lot less for editors' personal opinions when they disagree with said sources. Bengalski 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea! After you have changed the article to report Scholder's opinion as fact and I had to dig up this review to show that he is very much disputed on this, I am supposed to dig up more people disagreeing with him (which many do by simply writing differently). Certainly Savidan was not ground down. All this while you stay away (which I understand, there is a life outside of WP) and now you return and expect that everything must be returned to the state you last saw? This coming from the guy who suppported EffK's wrongheaded abuse of his talk page? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note I never wrote Scholder's view as fact - that has never been my intention. My view is that it is a plausible, and highly notable, interpretation that needs to be featured in the article. I'm fine with saying that other experts disagree with it, if you have those sources. But you have no justification for removing it altogether. Bengalski 14:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If I attributed that inclusion wrongly to you, I am indeed sorry.

Let's see if I get your point right: we should include a opinion into the article whose only link to the person covered in this article is that opinion itself, an opinion that has not acceptence and not supported by and rather running counter to the mass of evidence? The issue with your demands for verification of the verified while not providing some yourself, I have already addressed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again:

1) The guy is a recognised authority on the subject - as far as I can see even those who disagree with him admit that his book is the number one reference on the relationship between the churches and the third reich.

2) That his conclusion "is not supported by and rather running counter to the mass of evidence" is your own personal opinion, and carries no weight in WP.

3) Even if it were the opinion of other notable scholars, and you could show this, I still don't see it as reason for censoring him from the article. If there are differences of scholarly opinion we should say what they are and if possible try to indicate the balance of opinion on either side. This would need more though than just citing one critical review - we should do a more comprehensive survey of the historical literature.

4) Scholder is notable not only on his own merits (point 1), but because he is a major source for much of the recent criticism of Pius - e.g., a chapter of Cornwell's book is based entirely on his work on the concordat. I know of course that you disagree with Cornwell and these other recent critics, but they are nevertheless notable criticisms and highly relevant to the article. I included Scholder in place of more recent sources because a) he is so highly respected and b) they are mainly building on his work. But we could certainly add in names of modern writers who agree with him. (Who knows, maybe even the 'majority' - though I think that's impossible to prove either way unless we conduct some major survey of everyone who has written on Pius, off the net as well as on it.)

5) I don't see what you want me to verify. I have never tried to represent Scholder as fact, or even as 'majority opinion'. Just as one important source - important enough (see points 1 and 4) to be included in the article. If there are important counter opinions ... see point 3. Bengalski 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And so I'll try again as well:

1) The guy is a recognised authority on the subject. Those disagreeing with him laud his pioneering role but the don't call him the "number one reference on the relationship between the churches and the third reich", not then, certainly not now. Certainly not on the points he is criticized at.

2) That his conclusion "is not supported by and rather running counter to the mass of evidence" is not my personal opinion but what the review says.

3) Ben, namecalling like "censoring" doesn't help matters. In any case, you want to give a certain POV undue weight by including it here when the only connection between the EA and Pius is exactly that disputed POV. I am not saying that this view has no place on WP but this article is on Pius the man.

4) Your fourth point is irrelevant IMO. If Cornwell is partly based on Scholder that is his concern and not important to this article. We don't include other books Cornwell used into the article directly.

5) You should verify that serious scholarship agrees with Scholder on this. That is what I am asking of you and that is what your own principles demand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this on topic. Scholder is obviously a important source about Pacelli's role in the crafting of the Reichskonkordat. As str's review shows, his work is not without criticism, but that review also acknowledges him as perhaps the best source for this. I think that establishes him as a non-minority view, but I don't know if any view on this subject can qualify as the majority view. Str, while it is not your burden to find more indicts of Scholder, I do see it as your burden to provide some other sources which rise to at least this level of scholarship for the subject of Pacelli's role in the Reichskonkordat. Just so we can see what we're dealing with, I've set up a section below for you each to put your prefered version so they can be viewed side-by-side. I took the liberty of grabbing the most recent version, but each of you please feel free to edit! savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reply:

• Scholder is an important work but we are dealing exactly with these issues for which he is not merely "criticized" in the review, but blasted. And rightfully so, if you take a look at his strange correlation between his chapter headers and reality (read the review for this).
• I also want to remind you that I have already provided Volk, a large tome entirely on the Concordat. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more note. As I posted this [3] I do not propose the inclusion of Brüning in this form. More on this later. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's my version - I went back to the original Scholder version I wrote in February. Unfortuantely it is longer, and maybe I can work on it further for length, but first I think we need some resolution about content. I think there was a problem that some of the stuff that had been removed made it less clear. I.e., obscured the point that Scholder is saying Pacelli himself was involved in the negotiations, with Kaas as a 'go-between'. This claim is obviously very much germane to Pacelli personally, and is what has been taken up by Cornwell etc. more recently. Again, if we have references to scholars of Scholder's reputation criticising his view, we should put that in to qualify - but not remove - Scholder's argument. Bengalski 19:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

Is there a source for the 55 protests claim? Bengalski 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On Bruning and the 'coalition': yes my understanding is that Str is right in that Bruning's government was not a formal coalition involving the SDP. However his rule relied on what might be called a 'tacit coalition' or understanding with the SDP. Here's what the WP article on Bruning says (obviously I'm not quoting this as a source but just to help discussion) :

Hindenburg desired to base the government on the parties of the right but the right-wing German National People's Party (DNVP) refused to support Brüning's government. To the President's dismay, Brüning therefore had to rely on his own Centre Party, the only party that fully supported him, and the toleration of the Social Democrats.

... also this, which suggests Pacelli here was making the same arguments as conservatives within Germany such as Hindenburg:

These effects undermined the support of the Social Democrats for the government and the liberal and conservative cabinet members favoured opening the government to the right. President Hindenburg, pushed by his camarilla and military chief Kurt von Schleicher, also advocated such a move and insisted on a cabinet reshuffle and especially the resignation of ministers Wirth and Guérard, both from the Centre. Bengalski 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that there was no coalition after all, hiding it behind wordings like "informal coalition"?

Since after the 1930 elections, the SPD (as it is called correctly) tolerated Brüning by not supporting any parliamentary moves of opposing him, thus allowing him to rule by decree (as majority of parliament could contravene every decree - such an act led to the disastrous elections of 1930).

That several forces (including the President after his reelection which he considered embarassing) wanted to open the adminsitration to the right is no secret and actually only logical given the parliamentary structure of the constitution. Whether Pacelli entertained such thoughts is a different matter. However, this doesn't change that a statement about a SPD-Centre coalition in 1931 either refers to Prussia or is simply factually incorrect. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy to admit I made a mistake about there being a coalition government. I'm not trying to hide anything - what happened to 'assume good faith?'. I'd be happy to remove that - it's not the point in any case. We could change it to e.g.:

According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he ally the Centre Party with conservative parties and the Nazis and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately." Bengalski 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, but why first talk about an "informal coalition", if it simply was a mistake. And yes, the "simply" is indeed a problem, as it singles out Pacelli when many people tried the same, the logical thing in a parliamentary democracy. Also, where did the coalition bit come from - was it your or Scholder's mistake? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the Scholder book with me at the moment - I will check it as soon as I get a chance. If you have it to hand - I remember you saying you were reading it - you might have a look. My guess it was my mistake, as it was my wording not a quote, and I think it's rather more likely I would make such a slip than Scholder.

Anyway that is all rather beside the point - let's just remove the reference to the coalition. It has no real bearing on the point - that Pacelli urged Bruning to work with the Nazis in order to get the concordat. This is a highly illuminating point, and I can't see any reason for removing it from the article.

Yes other conservatives of the time favoured working with the Nazis - but I don't see how that diminishes the relevance of this for understanding Pacelli, and the concordat in particular.

Meanwhile, we don't seem to be getting any further with the other points you removed from the article. I feel they're highly relevant and need to go back in, but as I've said a few times now I have no problem with balancing them with other views of equal scholarly weight. For example, you mention Volk - why not provide a quote from Volk on this?

If we can't get any headway on this I think the best move would be to ask for mediation. Bengalski 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will have a look into Volk and into Scholder and get back to with the results.

If we include this it has to be in proper context. Currently, it isn't.

PS. And I did some archiving as well - all these other issues seemed to be solved. The archiving request I did delete (before anyone accuses me of censoring), as it is not really worth keeping, is it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pius is one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility". This suggests as a corollary that during non-recent history popes invoked it more often. Is that implication intentional? Savidan said this should be an obvious point b/c papal infallibility was promulgated in the 19th century, but I find the sentence confusing for exactly this reason. Marskell 00:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. I went ahead and just removed the offending portion. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Papal infallibility is a long held belief in the Catholic Church. It was defined as a dogma in 1870, which means that ever since the belief is part of the Catholic faith which cannot be denied. It doesn't mean that before the belief didn't exist or that infallibility was not used by the Popes, though the classification before Pius IX is harder since the process was less regulated. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

None of which is explained by the sentence in question. Marskell 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not the topic of this article. We link to this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Giovane is adding again and again a book by one Leonardo Ciampa, who according to his WP article is a musician. How is a book by a musician relevant? What is this book about? (Don't say Pius XII, as we could guess that much.) The website of the author's publisher has only empty spaces on that book and says "coming soon". Please explain this all here (and not in the article) and don't issue ultimata. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Str1977, I will kindly warn you once again to be more respectful and less sarcastic towards fellow editors. Giovane is adding again -- what kind of statement is that? It is inappropriate in every way. How is a book by a musician relevant? I took a moment to look at the Ciampa WP article (which you yourself mentioned but did not read) and saw that he is a musician and author. I sincerely hope that you will take a more courteous tone in the future. GiovaneScuola2006 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have any reason to lecture other editors here. It is you who have hitherto not explained your addition (and I remotely remember that this book came up before).

I have seen that he is called a "musician and author", only that the word author is utterly void. Anyone who has written a book is an author. But what makes Ciampi relevant on Pius? Is he a historian? A theologian? Or is he somehow taking a musical approach? I really don't know and would like to know. And I think others think so as well. So please put the cards on the table. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You write that it is "a very good book about Pope Pius XII" and "a highly relevant and in fact important book on this topic". Please explain why, in what regard. Just your "humble opinion" is I am afraid not good enough if you don't share your insight. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your feeling, I have as much right to edit as you do. Also contrary to your feeling, my humble opinion is not inferior to yours. In 48 hours I will restore a book which, if you had bothered to read it, would find is an extraordinary book. And if "anyone can be an author," what have you written lately? Your attitude is very snobby, sarcastic, and un-Wikian in feeling; I kindly request that you reconsider your negative spirit. GiovaneScuola2006 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with str1977. The references section is not inteded to be a complete bibliography on Pope Pius XII. It should be limited almost exclusively to works that are cited in the article or that are seminal/important/niche. Wikipedia certainly should not be used as an outlet to bring more visibility to a work. This book hasn't even come out yet. Let's wait until it gets reviewed and cited to judge how important it is. It's not snobbish to try to keep the References section concise. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Savidan wrote: str's intentions were noble, but if this ridiculous is going to go on within the commenting its better just to remove it entirely OK, so let me get this straight (Admins, listen up, this appears to be the policy with many here): if someone reverts an edit enough times, that makes the whole matter "ridiculous" and the best solution is to "remove it entirely." Is that how Wiki works??? Savidan, your ideas are regrettable and lamentable. Str's intentions were noble? Noble? GiovaneScuola2006 03:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was very reasonable of him to leave the book in as a comment, but you abused that too. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 04:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your estimation I absolutely agree with you that you "have as much right to edit as you do" and that your "humble opinion is not inferior to" mine. However, that goes both ways and I (and note it is not just me) have just as much the right to challenge your addition as you have the right to add them. Maybe I would find the book extraordinary if I read it. I have absolutely no view on the book, positive or negative. However, why are you not responding to my simple request to give an outline here, since you obviously have read it and think it so great and relevant. If you do, you will find open-minded listeners to your case. If the book hasn't come out yet as the publishers web site suggests (if so, how could I have read it?), then there is no need to hurry. You have all the time to make your case. There is certainly no need for ultimata - these I find very "un-Wikian". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked indefinitely by Glen S. AnnH ♫ 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Giovane. Str's tone is fairly combative and not the least bit constructive. By the same token of you're question, what makes you, str, so knowledgeable as to comment on either the subject of this article or its source material? Do you purport to know more than Ciampa? Do you know anything about him? See, its easy to be combative, less so to be constructive. While anybody CAN be an author, as you claim, that doesnt neccessarily preclude someone who is a musician from also being a historian (a field of study which can serve as both profession and...wait for it...hobby). The pejorative use of his musicianship status has, in my opinion, no place in a valid discussion about any topic.

Certain paragraphs of this featured article are absolutely similar to sentences of this page [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.180.129 ( talk) 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC). I am responsible for this talk edit. UAltmann 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide any specific examples? If so, I'll make sure to reword and organize those portions so that they are substantially different. savid @ n 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a closer look at the wording shows that there is no exact match, but a great similarity. Might be that I had earlier versions of the article in my mind... Could also be that the source I found was a copy from this article.

This is the wording of the article:

In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)

In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience."(8)

On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, "The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms."(9) Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope's behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.(10)

This is the wording of the source I found:

In the spring of 1940, Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked Cardinal Secretary of State Luigi Maglione to intercede on behalf of Lithuanian Jews facing deportation to Germany

(...)

In August 1942, by which time it has been estimated that thousands of Ukrainian Jews had been killed in the eastern front, in response to a letter from Andrej Septyckyj, Pius advised Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience" (a quote from Psalms).[78]

On 18 September 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (who would later become Pope Paul VI), wrote to Pius, "the massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms."[65] Later that month, when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned Pius that silence on the atrocities would hurt the Vatican's "moral prestige"—

(...)

My intention is not to blame anyone, but to prevent wikipedia from legal problems. -- UAltmann 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of these. savid @ n 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In this article, v. Weizsäcker is quoted. Would it be right to fully quote him? He cabled: "Regardless of the advice of many, the Pope has not yet let himself be persuaded to make an official condemnation of the deportation of the Roman Jews. Despite the fact that he must expect his attitude to be criticized by our enemies and attacked by the Protestants in Anglo-Saxon countries, who will use it in their anti-Catholic propaganda, he has thus far achieved the impossible in these delicate circumstances in order not to put his relations with the German government and with its representatives at Rome to the test. Since it is currently thought that the Germans will take no further steps against the Jews in Rome, the question of our relations with the Vatican may be considered closed.

The highlighting of parts of the quotation was done by me. The historian Lichten regards the highlighted part of the citation as a warning to Berlin not to proceed with the deportations of the Jews of Rome. Indeed, the deportations then ceased.

The full citation is taken from "A Question of Judgment: Pius XII & the Jews" by Dr. Joseph L. Lichten. Dr. Joseph L. Lichten, who died in Rome, in December, 1987, was a long-time proponent of mutual understanding and cooperation between the Catholic and Jewish communities in both the United States and Europe. He was born in Poland, received his Doctor of Law degree from the University of Warsaw, and engaged in international diplomacy with the Polish government. In 1963, shortly after the initial production of Rolf Hochhuth's play, The Deputy, and while serving as director of the International Affairs Department for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, he wrote this monograph. It was published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, forerunner of the United States Catholic Conference. To read his complete publication see here [5]. -- UAltmann 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

At this time, I would like to renew my criticism that many quotations and citations of this featured article are drawn apart from their context, using this example. -- UAltmann 15:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to including Lichten's view point in the article if properly sourced and attributed. From your previous post it does seem like you understand that the quote itself is fact, and that Lichten's analysis is just his interpretation. savid @ n 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I rendered the source I would leave the wording up to you, since you are the native speaker... -- UAltmann 19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have acess to this source. Could you give me the page numbers and preferably a small amount of quoted text for where he makes the analysis that v. W. was "in on it" or that it was a "threat." savid @ n 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See here [ [6]]

This revert requires a little more explanation than the edit window gives.

First, the thing about Pacelli using anti-Semitic language. That is actually based on a rather ungenerous translation by Cornwell of a letter written by a subordinate at the nunciature, and is not taken seriously even by most critics of Pius XII. This material is perhaps relevant to the Hitler's Pope article as it was one of the most controversial pieces of material. However, it's inclusion here, especially the unencyclopedic statement " This statement and Pius'holding regular audiences for German soldiers could not be interpreted other than as expressing solidarity with Hitler at a time he was commiting genocide against Jews, Roma and homosexuals" is inappropriate and POV.

The thing about the hidden encyclical is already mentioned in a more neutral way. Details should be added to the Humani Generis Unitas article; however original resesarchy claims that Pius XII should have promulgated this encyclical have no place in his bio.

The last bit from Susan Zuccotti could possibly mentioned. She does rather exhaustively review evidence about whether Pius XII peronsally was involved in various acts by churches and other cristian organizations, but in the form it was added it is rather unhelpful.

Also, I don't know why the vanity fair link was removed. Theres no free version of the entire book online so thats a good resource. Vanity Fair is obviously a reliable source and obviously not a copyvio. Cornwell let them publish an exerp of his book to promote it and they put it on their website. Savidan 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not add large swathes of information that do not pertain directly to Pope Pius XII. In depth descriptions of the effect of the holocaust in specific parts of Europe may belong in other articles but do not belong in this article. Nor is all information pertaining to the church in the second world war relevant to this article. Savidan 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the anti-Hochhuth article of Ion Mihai Pacepa („National Review“, Jan. 25, 2007) should be reconsidered (chapter “The Deputy”). A deletion of this sparsely reliable source would be resonable. German conservative historian Thomas Brechenmacher (not anticlerical and far from being a Hochhuth-apologist) strongly challenges the plausibility of Pacepa in the foremost German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ("Hochhuths Quellen. War der 'Stellvertreter' vom KGB inspiriert?", in: F.A.Z., April 26, 2007) with reference to numerous „inconsistencies“ (the files on Pius XII. were still treasured in the Vatican’s state secretariat in 1960, Casaroli still played a subaltern role at that time and could hardly have given Romanian spymasters insight into these documents, Hochhuth’s documentary appendix “Historical Sidelights” goes back on sources „that were available in print at that time”, etc.). -- Diggindeeper 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in inclined to agree with you as far as this article is concerned, but the national review article and the article you mention should both be cited in the article about The Deputy. Savidan 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The last revert ist really nothing else than editwar, savidan! I cited a source which is similar to that one you cited. Who do you think you are to hold yourself eligible to revert everything which does not match your personal point of view??? -- 84.142.151.103 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the last edit, I corrected one more quotation, citing a really reliable primary source. The quotations are cited in a way, that makes the sense turn to the opposite. This is not a good way to write an article. -- 84.142.151.103 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add other material thats fine. What you did was remove one quote by placing a completely different one on top of it while leaving the original source. That implies that both references back up the new quote when that is not the case, introducing inaccuracy into the article—the merits that of the lengthy, elipsis- and paraphrase-ridden quotations that you have introduced into the article aside. This isn't wikiquote or wikisource; the introduction of large quotes into the article will quickly make it unreadable. Savidan 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not a completely different quote, it was the quote of one and the same letter from Pius to v. Preysing. Only the translation was a bit different, please note, that the original words of the letter are taken from German. Again: What you are doing is shortening not only the quote, but also the sense of the quote. This is not justifiable by readability of the article. -- 84.142.168.147 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way: It was YOUR concept of puting a whole lot of quotes into the article. Then you dare say to me that this is not Wikiquote. That does not make any sense. -- 84.142.168.147 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a better translation of the letter to v. Preysing: "We leave it to the [local] bishops to weigh the circumstances in deciding whether or not to exercise restraint, ad maiora mala vitanda [to avoid greater evil]. This would be advisable if the danger of retaliatory and coercive measures would be imminent in cases of public statements by the bishop. Here lies one of the reasons We Ourselves restrict Our public statements. The experience We had in 1942 with documents which We released for distribution to the faithful gives justification, as far as We can see, for Our attitude.(...)" Translation taken from [ Jewish Virtual Library].

Can we try to come to a mutually acceptable summary of the quotation? It seems like defenders of Pius like the "ad maiora mala vitanda" part and critics of Pius like the part about him not being carried away into making public protests? I've really tried to reduce the size and frequency of quotation. Keep in mind that all the ones presently at wikiquote were at one time in the article. Savidan 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Since you have thoroughly analyzed the pros and cons, why not mention both? Thus, the article remains neutral and the reader is able to form an opinion of his own. -- 84.142.168.147 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The main issue for me though is that there shouldn't be a 100 word quotation from one letter to v. P., who really really quite the supporting actor in relationship to PPXII in the big picture. Savidan 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The main issue for me is that a quote should be made in a way that the quote delivers the message and the intention of the one who is being quoted. Since the topic is not really an easy one, we cannot fully quote, yes, (the letter to v. P. is several pages long), but we should quote the key messages. The key messages of both, v. Weizsäcker and Pius' letter are, that there indeed have been actions of the vatican in favor of the jews, but not in the way of a loud and formal protest. In the letter to v. P., Pius clearly acknowledges his self-restraint, but not without giving a reason for it. Since we write an article about Pius and indeed have a source which states his motives, we should quote it in a way, that does not cut out his key motives. If you object to the amount of words, please make a proposal how to shorten it without turning the message to its opposite. -- 84.142.168.147 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec. 25, 1942, p. 10). To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis. According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24):

The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.

Also The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1942 (Late Day edition, p. 16) states:

This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things.

This should be mentioned in the article.´ 84.142.178.154 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pius XII's decision to appoint Luigi Cardinal Maglione as the Vatican's new Secretary of State brought favorable reactions. The March 16, 1939 Zionist Review in London said that the Cardinal's appointment "confirms the view that the new Pope means to conduct an anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist policy."

Certainly, such statements made by Jewish newspapers and organizations show they considered the newly elected Pope Pius XII a friend of democracy and peace, and an enemy of racism and totalitarianism. Cardinal Pacelli's role in negotiating the concordat with the Nazis did not cause any concern. Instead, many Jews cited his anti-Nazi speeches, and his role as Vatican Secretary of State, which helped produce the 1937 anti-Nazi encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge, and numerous protests against the persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany.

Less than two months after World War II broke out, on October 27, Pius XII issued his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus. On the same day, the New York-based Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the equivalent of the Associated Press, reported that, "the unqualified condemnation which Pope Pius XII heaped on totalitarian, racist and materialistic theories of government in his encyclical Summi Pontificatus caused a profound stir... Although it had been expected that the Pope would attack ideologies hostile to the Catholic Church, few observers had expected so outspoken a document..."

In a November 9, 1939 editorial, "Endowed with Reason," the American Israelite in Cincinnati also discussed the encyclical. "In decrying totalitarianism, Pope Pius XII called the individual the end and the state the means of bringing out the fundamental equality of men because men are endowed with reason," the editorial said. "This concept of democracy is reiterated in the Pope's Encyclical, stressing again the inviolability of the human person as a sacred being..."

In January 1940, the United Jewish Appeal for Refugees and Overseas Needs donated $125,000 to the Vatican in order to assist its efforts on behalf of all victims of racial persecution. On January 19, the Jewish Ledger in Hartford, Connecticut described the United Jewish Appeal's gift as an "eloquent gesture," which "should prove an important step in the direction of cementing the bonds of sympathy and understanding" between Catholics and Jews. An account of how the money was spent is in the Vatican's official wartime documents, Actes et documents du Saint Siege relatifs a la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, (Vol. VI, pp. 282-283.)

On January 26, 1940, the Jewish Advocate in Boston reported, "The Vatican radio this week broadcast an outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi [occupied] Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind." Exiled Polish Cardinal August Hlond of Gnezo and Poznan had given the Vatican detailed reports about the Nazi persecution of the Church in Poland. On the Pope's orders, Vatican Radio broadcast the cardinal's reports. The front-page story quoted one Vatican Radio broadcast as saying, "Jews and Poles are being herded into separate ghettos, hermetically sealed and pitifully inadequate for the economic subsistence of the millions designed to live there." This broadcast was also important because it gave independent confirmation of media reports about Nazi atrocities, which were previously dismissed as Allied propaganda.

Also, on January 26, the Canadian Jewish Chronicle published a brief item about Jacob Freedman, a Boston tailor. Mr. Freedman was concerned about the fate of his sister and nephews in German-occupied Poland. He wrote the State Department and the Red Cross, but they were unable to provide any information. Mr. Freedman then sought Pope Pius XII's assistance.

Several months later, Cardinal Maglione informed Mr. Freedman that his family were alive and well in Warsaw. "I don't know the words to express what I feel, that they should take an interest in us with all the other things in the world to worry them, " said Mr. Freedman. "I think it's the finest, most wonderful thing." According to Pinchas Lapide's 1967 book, Three Popes and the Jews, the Vatican Information Office helped tens of thousands of Jews locate missing relatives in Europe.

On March 14, 1940, the Jewish Chronicle in London commented on Pope Pius XII's conditions for a "just and honorable peace," which he articulated in his 1939 Christmas message. The Chronicle said that the Pope's conditions, especially the protection of racial minorities, were a "welcome feature," and praised him for standing up for "rights of the common man."

Also, in March, Italy's anti-Semitic laws went into effect, and many Jews were dismissed from the government, universities, and other professions. In response, Pius XII appointed several displaced Jewish scholars, including geographer Prof. Roberto Almagia, to posts in the Vatican Library. The March 29 Kansas City Jewish Chronicle said that the Pope's actions showed "his disapproval of the dastardly anti-Semitic decrees."

On April 29, 1941, a group of Jewish refugees interned at an Italian concentration camp thanked Pius XII after being visited by Bishop Francesco Borgognini-Duca, the papal nuncio in Italy. The prisoners wrote that the nuncio's visit gave them "new courage to go on living," and they described the Pope as a "revered personality who has stood up for the rights of all afflicted and powerless people." (Actes, VIII, pp. 178-179).

On January 2, 1942, the front page of the California Jewish Voice published a report on the Pope's 1941 Christmas address. "Religious persecution and oppression of minorities must have no place in the world of the future, declared Pope Pius XII in his annual Christmas Eve message," the article said.

By early 1942, the Nazis began to implement their plans to exterminate the Jews. The Vatican had no practical way of bringing these plans to a halt, but sought to assist endangered Jews and other victims on a case-by-case basis. This assistance ranged from actively opposing the deportations to meeting the material and spiritual needs of refugees. For example, on April 14, 1942, Rabbi Naftali Adler and Dr. Max Pereles, the representatives of thousands of Jewish refugees interned at the Ferramonti concentration camp in southern Italy, sent a letter of thanks to the Pope, who sent "an abundant supply of clothing and linen" to the children at the camp, and took care of the prisoners' other needs. "This noble and generous gift proves anew what the whole world knows and admires that Your Holiness is... also the paternal guardian and promoter of the ideal of humanity for all mankind," they wrote. (Actes, VIII, pp. 505-507).

In 1942, Croatia's Jews were being brutally persecuted by the Nazi-installed dictatorship. On August 4, Chief Rabbi Miroslav Freiberger of Zagreb, Croatia's capital, sought more assistance from Pius XII. Already, the Vatican's unofficial diplomatic representative in Croatia, Msgr. Joseph Marcone, who was acting on Cardinal Maglione's instructions, and Archbishop Alois Stepinac opposed the anti-Jewish persecutions. In his letter, Chief Rabbi Freiberger appreciated "the limitless goodness that the representatives of the Holy See and the leaders of the Church showed to our poor brothers." (Actes, VIII, p. 611). Throughout the war, the Chief Rabbi continued to express his gratitude to the Vatican for helping Croatian Jews.

The deportations of French Jews also began in late July 1942. Msgr. Valerio Valeri, the papal nuncio in France, protested the deportations with Marshall Henri Philippe Petain and Prime Minister Pierre Laval in August. The nuncio's intervention became publicly known by the end of the month. On August 28, the California Jewish Voice said, "Pope Pius XII has asked the Papal Nuncio at Vichy to protest to the Laval Government against 'the inhuman arrests and deportations' of Jews in France... Previously, reports from Geneva had indicated that the Pope had tried, though vainly, to use his good offices in Slovakia to prevent deportations and other cruelties."

The Voice’s account is confirmed by the Actes. On October 31, 1941, Cardinal Maglione had given Msgr. Valeri and Pierre Cardinal Gerlier of Lyon a blank check to "tone down" the practical application of the anti-Semitic laws, which would include any deportations. In April 1942, the Vatican protested the deportations of Slovak Jews with a note to the Slovak Government.

Although Msgr. Valeri actually made the protest, the Jewish press understood that he was acting on behalf of Pius XII. In a September II editorial, the Jewish Chronicle in London said, "The Pope's action is also a striking affirmation of the dictum of one of the Pope's predecessors that no true Christian can be an anti-Semite..."

In his 1942 Christmas message, the Pope condemned the treatment of "hundreds of thousands who, without any fault on their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or a progressive extinction." The Pope's defenders argue that this was a clear reference to the Holocaust. The Pope's detractors insist that he didn't go far enough, and should have condemned the Nazis by name. But the Nazis understood the Pope very clearly. "In a manner never known before the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order," complained a January 22, 1943 report by the Reich Central Security Office. "Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice towards the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals." (Anthony Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of Dictators (1973), pp. 272-273). I was unable to find any references to the Pope's address in the many Jewish newspapers that I examined. However, in a January 20, 1943 letter to Msgr. Arthur Hughes, the apostolic delegate in Egypt, Chaim Barlas, the Jewish Agency's Turkish Representative, wrote, "The highly humanitarian attitude of His Saintety [meaning, Holiness] expressing His indignation against racial persecutions, was a source of comfort for our brethren." (Actes, IX, p. 90). If Pius XII was "silent" in the literal sense of the word, then the Reich Central Security Office and Chaim Barlas could not have made these conclusions.

In late 1942, Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog of Jerusalem sought the Pope's intervention to rescue Jews from the Nazis. On February 12, 1943, the Vatican's reply to Chief Rabbi Herzog was noted on the front page of the California Jewish Voice. "The Vatican this week cabled Chief Rabbi Herzog, assuring him that it is doing everything possible for all the victims of Nazi persecution, including the Jews," the article said. The Jewish Chronicle in London and the Australian Jewish News also reported the Vatican's assurance to the Chief Rabbi.

On April 16, 1943, the Australian Jewish News published a brief article about Cardinal Gerlier, who had strongly opposed the deportations of French Jews, and was sheltering Jewish children. The article quoted the cardinal as saying that he was obeying Pius XII's instructions by continuing to oppose France's anti-Semitic measures.

In his June 2 address to the College of Cardinals, Pope Pius XII spoke up again. He referred to persons "tormented as they are, because of their nationality or their race... delivered, without any fault on their part, to measures of extermination." The July 16, 1943 Jewish Chronicle in London published a slightly different version of these words on its front page under the title, "The Pope's Solicitude."

On September 24, Alex Easterman, the British representative of the World Jewish Congress, contacted Msgr. William Godfrey, the apostolic delegate in London. Easterman informed him that about 4,000 Jewish refugees from Croatia were safely evacuated to an island in the Adriatic Sea. "I feel sure that efforts of your Grace and of the Holy See have brought about this fortunate result," Easterman wrote. (Actes, IX, pp. 488-489).

After Benito Mussolini's fall from power, the new Italian government surrendered to the Allies in September 1943. German troops occupied Italy, including Rome, in order to stop the Allied offensive. During the occupation of Rome, the Nazis threatened to arrest Roman Jews unless their leaders paid them 50 kilograms of gold. When the Roman Jews were able to raise only 42 kilograms of gold, they turned to the Pope, who agreed to provide the balance. Meanwhile, the Jews raised the balance from ordinary Catholics and informed the Vatican that the Pope's contribution was not needed. On October 28, 1943, however, the Palestine Post in Jerusalem noted Pius XII's offer on the front page under the headline, "The Pope's Gift to the Jews."

On October 16, the Nazis also seized about 1,000 Jews and deported them to Auschwitz. On October 29 Jewish Chronicle in London reported the Vatican's response to the arrests: "The Vatican has made strong representations to the German Government and the German High Command in Italy against the persecution of Jews in Nazi-occupied Italy..."

This account of the Vatican's actions was exactly correct. On Pius XII's orders, Cardinal Maglione made an immediate protest with Germany's Ambassador. Bishop Alois Hudal, the Rector of the German Catholic Church in Rome, protested the arrests of Jews with the German Military Governor of Rome. Along with the Vatican's protests, 4,700 Jews disappeared into Rome's convents, monasteries and the Vatican itself. The remaining 2,300 Jews were able to find shelter elsewhere because Vatican protests brought the round-ups to an end.

By 1943, the Vatican's many rescue efforts on behalf of Jews were being universally acknowledged. In the fall of 1943, the Jewish communities of Chile, Uruguay, and Bolivia sent letters to Pope Pius XII, and thanked him for assisting Jews (Actes, IX, pp. 498, 501-502, and 567).

The 1943-1944 American Jewish Yearbook said that Pius XII "took an unequivocal stand against the oppression of Jews throughout Europe." In his February 18, 1944 letter to Msgr. Amleto Cicognani, the apostolic delegate in Washington, D.C., Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig, the political director of the World Jewish Congress, wrote that "the repeated interventions of the Holy Father on behalf of Jewish Communities in Europe has evoked the profoundest sentiments of appreciation and gratitude from Jews throughout the world." (Actes, X, p. 140).

Two important Jewish leaders who worked with the Vatican to save Jews also expressed similar sentiments. "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in this most tragic hour of history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world," Chief Rabbi Herzog declared on February 28. (Actes, X, p. 292). In his April 7 letter to the papal nuncio in Romania, Chief Rabbi Alexander Shafran of Bucharest wrote, "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the Supreme Pontiff, who offered a large sum to relive the sufferings of deported Jews... The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance..." (Actes, X, pp. 291-292).

In June 1944, two separate events helped establish the Pope's reputation as a rescuer of Jews, at least temporarily. When the Allies liberated Rome, thousands of Jews came out of their hiding places, and told the world of their salvation by the Vatican. On June 25, the Pope openly protested the deportations of Hungarian Jews.

The many tributes to Pius XII began in July. "It is gradually being revealed that Jews have been sheltered within the walls of the Vatican during the German occupation of Rome," reported the July 7 Jewish News in Detroit. A July 14 editorial in the Congress Weekly, the official journal of the American Jewish Congress, added that the Vatican also provided Jewish refugees with kosher food.

Also on July 14, American Hebrew in New York published an interview with Chief Rabbi Israel Zolli of Rome. "The Vatican has always helped the Jews and the Jews are very grateful for the charitable work of the Vatican, all done without distinction of race," Rabbi Zolli said. After the war, Rabbi Zolli converted to Catholicism, which brought him much severe criticism from some Jews. Dr. Zolli's conversion was widely attributed to his gratitude for what the Pope did for Jews. In his 1954 memoirs, Before the Dawn, however, Dr. Zolli strongly denied this assertion. Instead, he claimed to have witnessed a vision of Christ, who called him to the faith.

A week later on July 21, the Vatican received telegrams from the National Jewish Welfare Board and the World Jewish Congress. The National Jewish Welfare Board expressed its gratitude to the Pope for "the aid and protection given to so many Italian Jews by the Vatican..." (Actes, X, pp. 358-359). The World Jewish Congress also acknowledged the Vatican's "noble humanitarian work" on behalf of Hungarian Jews. (Actes, X, pp. 359).

The deportations of Hungarian Jews horrified the Allied and neutral nations. The American Jewish Committee and other Jewish groups organized a rally in Manhattan's Madison Square Park on July 31 to mobilize public opinion against the deportations. In his address, Judge Joseph Proskauer, the Committee's president, declared, "We have heard... what a great part the Holy Father has played in the salvation of the refugees in Italy, and we know from sources that must be credited that this great Pope has reached forth his mighty and sheltering hand to help the oppressed of Hungary." (Speech obtained from American Committee Library in Manhattan).

During the following months, Rabbi Stephen Wise, the president of the American Jewish Congress, Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz of the British Empire, composer Irving Berlin, Congressman Emmanuel Cellar of Brooklyn, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jews of Europe, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, and the World Agudas Organization also lauded Pius XII for helping endangered Jews. At the time, Rabbi Wise also condemned Christian indifference toward the extermination of Jews.

With Rome liberated, the Pope frequently greeted Allied soldiers. During one meeting, he blessed a Jewish soldier from Palestine in Hebrew. In the Congress Weekly (October 20, 1944), Elias Gilner found great significance in this event. Gilner wrote that the Pope's blessing "becomes a memorable act, a far-flung message of good-will, an expression of the Christian spirit at its highest." Gilner added that Pius XII by this blessing also began a "new course" in Catholic-Jewish relations.

The tributes to Pope Pius XII from Jews continued after the war in Europe ended. On April 22, 1945, Moshe Sharrett, the future Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of Israel sent a report of his meeting with the Pope to the Executive of the Jewish Agency. Sharrett wrote that "my first duty was to thank him, and through him, the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public, for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews, to save children, and Jews in general." (Lapide, pp. 225-226)

On October 11, the World Jewish Congress donated $20,000 to Vatican charities. According to the New York Times (October 12, 1945), the gift was "made in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecution." Although the current leaders of the World Jewish Congress have a much different view of the Vatican's wartime actions, they never retracted that recognition.

An interesting list, but obviously one cherry-picked by a secondardy source. Do you mind my asking in which work you found this, or how it was compiled? Some of these could be added to the article if a full citation is provided. Some are better placed in other articles. Some seem to trivial to be mentioned in a summary biographical article. For each one of these, think: how relevant is this to the larger context of Pope Pius XII's life. For example, there were probably tons of sources that commented on Maglione's appointment as Card. Secretary of State. Being as he didn't even serve out the entire War, much less Pius XII's pontificate, it seems that details like that should go in Maglione's article. The same goes for reactions to his encyclicals; which should be added to the article about the encyclical. Savidan 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave out Maglione's appointment, but I think it is very much relevant to the article, how Pius and his direct actions in favor of the jews were received by those he is supposed to have foresaken, or, whose fate he is supposed to have been "silent" about.

Also, this article cites highly diplomatic language, which should always be carefully read, because diplomatic language always only circumscribes what it really means(i.e. "Speaking out against ... could be politically advantageous."

Look here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/chistory/PIUS12.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/pius12gs.htm

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1438

Well, is anybody going to react on this now?

None of those links appear to have anything directly to do with the quote in question. It's not clear what changes you are proposing based on them or whether you are asking us to do original research.

If you wish to propose changes, please be specific and provide full citations (see those currently used in the article if you don't understand what this means). Savidan 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A typical savidan-answer. What quote in question? This article is lacking half the story. This list is meant to show things, that the article does not say a word about. The citations are veryfiable.

I was responding to your claim about the quotation being highly diplomatic language; to add such context to the article we would need a reliable source that made that claim about the quote in question, at a minimum. I don't know if it "doesn't say a word about them." It does give the facts about the Christmas addresses, Mit brennender sorge, etc.; it just doesn't give them with the spin that you would expect from a partisan secondary source. Savidan 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently added the section "Visions and supernatural experiences", after watching a documentary on the life of Pius XII, which you can see at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PR1_vb4To

I added these details as they had not been addresses anywhere else in the article, and I felt they would be interesting to researchers.

Youtube is not an acceptable source. If you can find published, mainstream sources for the various claims you added, I suggest adding them to the relevant sections of the article instead of lumping them together like this. Savidan 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Youtube indeed is not a proper source BUT there is no reason to remove that material right away. I will restore and fact tag it - it cannot be that material referenced to a substandard source is treated worse than material not referenced at all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I prefer to leave the material on the talk page until a reliable source is found. Since this is a featured article, there should be a higher standard for adding poorly sourced material of such a nature. The adding editor should provide a reliable source for such material, or it should be removed. Fact tags just deprecate the quality of the article in question. Savidan 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is:

Pius XII was said to have experienced a number of supernatural experiences during his career, including premonitions, visions and apparations. Pius stated to have had a vision one night where Jesus appeared to him in his bedroom, calling in Latin "Voca me, voca me" (call me, call me). He later told Monsignor Tardini that "I think the Lord was calling me. It would be great to die in that moment". ^{[15] citation needed}

Pius also had a vision of the "Dance of the Sun" phenomena that had accompanied the visions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima in 1917. The Italian newspaper "La Domenica del Corriere" reported that Pius had this vision whilst walking in the gardens of the Vatican. By coincidence, the day the visions of Fatima had concluded, was the same day Pius had been consecrated as a Bishop.

Let me first say that I think that most of the controversy about the RK has more relevance to that article itself and thus does not belong in this article. However, Bruning's memoirs describe the role of Pacelli and thus are relevant to this section which should be focused on Pacelli's role in the RK. As always, a more details account of this can be given in the daughter article. Only if the criticisms of this source are directly relevant to the specific part being cited and to Pacelli's role in concluding the RK should they be included in this article. I am open to constructive improvements to this section, if sourced, and (as explained above) relevant to a biography of Pacelli. However, simply removing such content is not a step in the right drection at all. Savidan 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Brüning's memoirs are a problematic source and have proven to be unreliable in many regards. Scholder is a reliable source (though hardly anyone agrees with him) and he uses it BUT he uses it in the context of his thesis. So the whole event is relevant to this thesis and I believe that we do already cover Scholder's thesis. Including this questionable detail from the thesis is giving undue weight to a position rejected by most historians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have not shown any sources relevant to the specific facts from Brunings memoirs in question. Historians may debate with Bruning about his overall thesis; that does not mean that we should assume that all of his concrete facts are incorrect. I will give you a chance to provide a source to substantiate the claim that this is a "questionable detail." However, if you cannot, I shall readd it because I have already explained about how it is important to this article. Savidan 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Savidan, not Brüning's thesis - Scholder's thesis. Brüning's memoirs are considered unreliable on many details and I have shown this a long time ago. Anyway, there is a preference in WP on "secondary sources", isn't there? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a typo, I caught your meaning the first time. You have shown me other criticisms of Bruning's memoirs, but none that pertain to this specific detail (which is widely used in secondary sources) or even as the memoirs related to Pacelli. Depending on the context, primary or secondary sources may be prefered. Currently Bruning cited in Scholder is cited. Assuming that you object to this use of Scholder, can you furnish a source which casts any doubt on this specific part of Scholder or Bruning? Savidan 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to Scholder being portrayed as fact or even as majority opinion. The spot where we relate to Scholder doesn't do this but the inclusion of details from a questionable source (and no, I do not have to give you a book saying that this particular scene is questionable ... the reference I gave relates to events of the earlier thirties) is given as a straightforward fact, pushing the Scholder POV.

And can you show me the books where this particular episode is widely used? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Savidan, you are going to comment on this, aren't you? 62.109.81.26 09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy with other projects at the moment. When I have time, I'll readd this with a handful of refs and then the ball will be in your courts again. Until then, be happy that the content you find objectionable will not be visible to 1-2 readers per month. Savidan 15:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to find a non-Wikipedia/Wikipedia mirror source for the following so I removed it. When/if it is readded it should at least contain the date when he became godfather so we can figure out where to add it: Savidan 16:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII was godparent to the present pretender to the Portuguese throne Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza.

This article has gotten better but it is still strongly pro-Pius XII and everytime I try to make any changes to make it more balanced, someone takes them down. I don't appreciate my voice being suppressed, or the voices of hundreds of historians and scholars. Weber1 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Weber1

Weber, the only changes I have seen you make are attempting to put an oversimplifying summary of the controversy into the intro. As you can see in the later sections of the article, the Pius XII controversy is not waged between only two opinions, nor have the questions of historical inquiry been the same over time. There is no hope of summarizing 40 years of debate among historians (and pseudo-historians) in half a sentence. It is therefore necessary to leave it to the article text where there is room for citations and attribution. Please see the archives for the lengthy discussion that generated the intro as it currently stands.

If you have any specific problems about the article text itself, I would be happy to try to address those for you. Savidan 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have many specific problems but why should I even try to address them when a simple statement such as the one I tried to add is taken down. I do not agree it is oversimplified--an overview is not the place for anything more involed. Someone wanting an overview will want to know what the controversy was: in a few words. The Bill Clinton impeachment was about Clinton's indiscretions with Lewinsky, the reasons given for attack Iraq had to do with weapons of mass destruction, global warming is a result of industry producing too many emmissions, etc. It could be argued that these are all oversimplifications and it is true that they leave a lot out--but they give the kernel of what the matter is about. And that is what should be contained in that sentence which brings up the controversy. The controversy is about what Pope Pius XII did or did not do to help the Jews, as well as his relationship with the German government which at that time was Nazi. I stand by my original statement that it is simply bad writing if one brings up a controversy and then does not briefly explain what it is. That's what an overview should provide.

As I already said, I object to the bias in this article, and I am starting with the opening which goes into some detail, but neglects to explain the nature of the controversy. If we can't agree on the need for this, I have no reason to expend my time trying to improve this article. And I suspect that that is exactly what certain people perhaps you also would like. Which is why the Wikipedia is not to be trusted in many instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weber1 ( talk • contribs) 01:41, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The problem is also in the implied opposition between the two statements as though the debate were between (1) Pius XII didn't do enough and (2) Pius XII saved a lot of Jews. This is not an adequate summary of an issue that involves actions, intentions, words (i.e. "silence"), no to mention issues of opposition to communism, and issues not directly related to the Holocaust. The fact that you personally find two points of view most precient is not an objective measure of which are the most important, or even which too are in opposition. For example, of the two that you added, one is a dispute over subjective dispute (what is "enough"?) and the other is a dispute over objective figures (did he really save that number?). For many authors these are not the main issues of the debate. Many of Pius's critics are instead concerned with his motivations or public statements. Many of his defenders are instead concerned with the context of the war or his relationship with the allies. Many authors do not fit into the bionary you have suggested. At any rate, both of these issues are discussed in the article, so whether or not the intro is used to push a certain framing of the debate does not affect the completeness or bias in the article as a whole. Savidan 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Savidan, I stand by my recommendation that the controversy be briefly summarized in the overview. Summarized not framed, because "framed" sometimes implies an indirect way of slanting the way a subject is viewed. I have already explained that it means nothing to say that his actions during WWII/Holocaust are the subject of controversy. That's like saying "the U.S. government's role during Hurricane Katrina are the subject of controversy." What kind of controversy? Did they do too much? Not enough? Helped in the wrong place? In the wrong way? What's the controversy? That's what the many schoolchildren who visit this site will think, the ones who have to write a paper, who don't have time to delve into all the scholarly fine points that you are so fond of splitting hairs with me about. And re: those points, though the points you brought up are the subject of debate among academics, this is no mystery as to the core of the controversy, and it should be addressed clearly and directly rather than being hidden in a cloud of scholarly dicourse. As you must know, real scholars have to contend with the millions of pages of writing that has been devoted to this debate and they are not going to come to Wikipedia to read this short summary. But school children will probably only read the overview and skim the rest, and the Holocaust section does not state what the controversy is, and it is not clear in the other commentary sections either. The problem is that the main criticism of Pius XII is not what he did but what he didn't do. It is misleading that the Holocaust section is filled with statements of fact about what he did because there is no overarching voice to explain all that he could have done but failed or neglected to do. The interpretation sections bring up books like "Hitler's Pope" and plays like "The Deputy" but rather than summarizing the viewpoint of these works, there are instead interpretations of the interpretation which so happen to be negative and dismissive. It would be much better to just summarize what some of the major books say. As it is, it is no better than Fox News reporting about a John Kerry speech. Weber1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weber1 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you carefully work out a brief summary here on the talk page and justify the way you want it worded? Then I'll comment on it and others will comment on it and we'll see if such a summary is possible. The big issue for me is that the summary shouldn't be leading, it should recognize the diversity of views, and the scope of issues involved in the controversy, and it shouldn't construct a bionary opposition between two views. I don't know if this is possible, which is why I am skeptical of lengthening the intro, but if you think you can accomplish this we can work on a wording. Savidan

this page has been vanalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.217.247 ( talk) 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some vandalism going on. I will revert the most recent vandal. C++12 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I undid the vandalism successfully, but I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, so please let me know if I did it wrong. C++12 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• For Pope Pius XII and the April 1944 Vrba Report on Auschwitz see Vrba-Wetzler report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.49 ( talk) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Savidan 04:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In Italy he is remembered with the appellative of "Il Principe di Dio" (" God's Prince").