Talk:Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII has had two peer reviews by fellow Wikipedians which have now been archived (1, 2). They may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

Archives
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16

Revoked

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 "revoked" is the most problematic word - what was revoked?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)

Maurras

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)

Immunised

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)

Scholder

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)

Various dispute tags

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)

Jewish orphans controversy ("Pius' Children")

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)

Request

Would it be right to archive the major part of this talk page? It has grown miles long ... UAltmann 09:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)