Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 11

Reply by McClenon to EffK

First: I asked EffK to 'please, please' cooperate with Tom Harrison because I saw this as the last chance for EffK to make a positive rather than a negative contribution to Wikipedia. I do not want to have anyone banned from Wikipedia. However, I want to prevent Wikipedia from being disrupted, including by EffK's use of article talk pages as a filibuster. I only filed the RfAr because it appeared to be the only way to prevent EffK from disrupting the article pages and from disrupting the article talk pages (which makes discussion of improvements to the articles difficult). I was making one last effort to persuade EffK to cooperate with someone who would cooperate with him. Robert McClenon 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Second: Str1977 is of course right in pointing out the paradoxical contradiction of some of EffK's arguments. Robert McClenon 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Third: Secular humanism does not necessarily involve hostility to organized religion. Robert McClenon 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Fourth: If someone can summarize what EffK has just written, I would be interested. Robert McClenon 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In relation to point 4 - you wish, we all wish. Most of his contribs (talk pages included) look like they've been spewed out by some ghastly translation software.--shtove 20:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shtove . McC and Str, please Just stop saying I'm negative or say What is negative here? Just stop saying that the history is a form of POV. Stop denying source. Allow full representation of the source. Show source to the contrary and stop inviting persuasion which you then call filibuster. Here I prove that the late pontiff classified this as a scandal. Here I prove that the hierarchy u-turn was between 19 and 28 March. Elswehere I proved the illegal un-constitutionality of the accession following elections fought for by you, Str, on 'Jews at Holocaust when "accession to power was the result of intrigue" . Its easy to knock, but none of you proved a single thing. U-turn and kick-back is proveably nothing to do with my thinking and I demand WP verifiability rules. I think you guys are rather more strange than I. I am forced to ghastly because this POV hagiography dominates and excludes, as Bengalski- pointed out. You demand my banning because I promote a pet theory. I presume that whether Arbcom finds me as having made personal attack, or not, that that pet-theory accusation will have to be considered as charged -by you McClenon. What do you say to that- please, Shtove? Is it my pet theory, Shtove? Yes/no will do- since you hate explanatory length- ? And McC-what did Admin Tomharrison pay for exactly?EffK 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also refer you to my succeeding clarification at Vatican Bank discussion. I refer there to your opinion of Avro Manhattan, and intend to visit with him also, to test your theory, Robert McClenon, that he is hate literature. EffK 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK wrote: "Its easy to knock, but none of you proved a single thing." What did EffK prove? A timeline does not show causation. What do you want to put in the article about Pope Pius XII? Robert McClenon 04:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I answered that by showing previous in section:Answer re Flamekeeper, Famekeeper/EffK input excised. The word scandal must obviously be added as confirming the validity of the title of Secular Humanist Article. I proved the relevance of the word scandal at great length with canonical quotation a long time ago. I prove that my pet theory-which you Robert McClenon stated as my "engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler " is perfectly reasonable and NPOV historical comment. And that there is a low boredom threshold for history in Wikipedia which continues to allow nonsense/hagiography to creep in. And that English wording such as accession to power is abused against historic truth and the English dictionary. Do you want a point by point of all that I have proved? I will happily re-itemise the sourced events of complicity in and active support for Hitler as NPOV, but to what end is such repetition made when Jimbo knows you to be un-persuadable? I could instead source your decision(s) that this is my POV and show the concommitant inability to get you to adhere to your own part-declared acceptance of "the scandal ". Lets study Manhattan in light of the source shown throughout, and see what should be considered NPOV in him or lacking in foundation. I'll be back. Here's Bengalski meanwhile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EffK#Third_party_comment at[1] .EffK 10:36, 8

January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, just a few points:

• So far have not proven anything ... at least not the issue of content between us.
• Your list of books seems impressive at first, but

• you haven't shown that the serious/scholarly works among them support the issue of content
• my experience shows that you tend to misinterpretation
• you don't take into account the merits of historical scholarship by elevating earlier, even contemporary analysis over the rest
• you insist on including "hate literature" (Manhattan) and fictional works (Hochhuth)

• You disregard that there is something like historical debate by constantly equating your view with "the history"
• You keep on focusing on details of the events, details which I am not denying, but which you insist on using (in keeping with your non-scholarly sources) to make the Church look bad, e.g. birthday telegramms, diplomatic flattering. Inclusion of such details would be valid if followed by a in-depth analysis, bringing together accusation and defense, but unfortunately the space here is limited.
• And since you keep on claiming I have not produced sources, I can repeat only what I posted on "Ludwig Kaas":

• Morsey, Rudolf: Der Untergang des politischen Katholizismus. Die Zentrumspartei zwischen christlichem Selbstverständnis und "Nationaler Erhebung" 1932/33
• Junker, Detlef: Die Deutsche Zentrumspartei und Hitler 1932/33. Ein Beitrag zur Problematik des politischen Katholizismus in Deutschland
• Volk, Ludwig: Das Reichskonkordat vom 20. Juli 1933. Von den Ansätzen in der Weimarer Republik bis zur Ratifizierung am 10. September 1933
• Binder, Gerhart: Irrtum und Widerstand. Die deutschen Katholiken in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Nationalsozialismus
• Feldkamp, Michael F.: Pius XII. und Deutschland

Except for the last one, these books are in-depth analyses of the area of contention. Morsey was the editor of the Zentrum's files and minutes. Volk is standard on the concordat. Junker is a bit difficult and I'm not sure I agree with all of his analysis but I can assure you that he is more than critical of the Centre's politics 1932/1933.

Goodday, Str1977 11:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodday to you: You do not actually in the last 6 months try and counter one single fact I present with a source which actually counters.If you did I cannot find it. Can you find one? These books are all very well, perhaps you would use them to refute that which I have shown to be sourced. I really object to being told that I have an interpretaion problem. I go very far in presenting actual words of source precisely to allow that there is no interpretation by me. You, Sir, on the other consistently accuse me and revert and attack me as you do now, without refuting point by point from counter-source. It is not the WP way. Verifiability rules, not your definition of interpretation. I have said before, what is an English expression : put up, or shut up. I do not make this as a personal attack, but as it is used quite widely. Show your/the evidence where it is to the contrary. Spare me your personal ideas or interpretations, and stop using this straw man argument that I misinterpret. I show the proof within verifiability, unlike you. It seems therefore to be a plain personal attack upon my integrity. You do not apparently actually deny the verity of the considered events.

User:Str1977 writes: So far have not proven anything ... at least not the issue of content between us..... details which I am not denying. you dnied every detail, until you could no longer do so. Hence, now, you do not. You waste my time and patience in prrovocation of my good will.

I am at a loss to understand your justification of your behaviour. Specify exactly from your source how I present a POV in this and/or Specify why it{{}} is my personal POV and how I misrepresent that source/sources. Go ahead- I think good-faith necessitates itemised justification for this deep attack on my Userdom here. Do it at the sourced here or anywhere- I am broad-minded as to where. Avro Manhattan, I shall itemise and study given the succeeding sources, Trials. You may be right to excoriate him, I shall see now. Thankyou for reminding me. Users:This whole page relates to the remaining impossibilty of reaching the slightest consensus. I consider myself in good faith via verifiability.EffK 12:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits of January 8, 2006

Hi Str1977, just a friendly note to say that you have some legitimate criticism but you un-did an hours worth of work in making your changes. I don’t recall removing any criticism, in fact the part regarding the lawsuit and conspiracy theories which are really not on topic with regard to this part of the article were left untouched. What you restored was not a true statement “Pius XII's role during World War II has recently become a source of controversy.” It is not recent but rather has appeared in two distinct phases as I outlined in a detailed manner in my revisions. I did not want to remove the Lehrer comment even though I concluded what you did when you removed it (it is way out of context). Overall, I have made this section read much smoother where and when criticism appeared. I am reworking the article just slightly to include all the items I see that you like as well as restoring the historical timeline I gave to the article. Thanks!! User:70.21.184.251 22:22, 8 January 2006

Dear 70..., first of all: could you please sign your posts. Now, it wasn't my intention to undo any of your work (and fortunately nothing gets lost by editing WP). My edit summary wasn't directed against your edit but against this edit. Hope that clarifies things. Str1977 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Str1977 I see - I didn't realize that. I never liked how the article goes into detail of the play and perhaps that's why you removed that. If so, I agree and understand. Perhaps we could simply say that "The Deputy portrays Pius XII in a very poor and false light" and let persons follow a link to the Deputy if they want to know more about the details of the play.

Edits of January 1, 2006

I'm sorry, but there is no consensus that what you wrote improves the article. Your effort is noble but you've created an article that has a lot of conjecture. For one, Pius was in fact "universally praised" after WWII, it is not that "his apologists" (a very loaded word) say he was universally praised. Do George Washington's apologists say he was universally praised after the American Revolution or was George Washington universally praised? The latter of course. Even if some are not praising Pius XII today, that does not change the fact that he was universally praised after WWII. There is ample opportunity in the article to discuss late-20th century charges (and that's what they are - late 20th century). Not to nitpick this one point, but it is a good topic to prove the point: can you source some group of persons who condemned him after the war? No one can because he was universally praised. That is why adding "apologists" does not add any scholarship to this article, but rather makes it sound like no facts can be known about this person. I respectfully revert and hope you understand.

One More Request for Summary

Article talk pages are for discussion of improvements to articles. What do you want to add to the Pope Pius XII article? Please state some specific change that you want to make. Robert McClenon 23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to consider the NPOV resolution of this article. I see that you accede to a merge. If you have no more to say, it is inappropriate to demand summary, whilst consensus is being built. I would welcome your suggestions, Robert McClenon, towards this actual re-structuring. I remind you that I censure your excisions, which in apparent denial of my good faith sourcing, imbalanced this article.

Will you answer the accusation you made against ther Administrator here? This page is not for accusing admins without reason. You suggest the admin bought his way into being an admin. Please explain your accusation, Robert McClenon.

I have several times answered this pejorative question you present. I also believe that the admin should allow himself to consider the merits of source presented here over time . I have asked Str1977 to present source to assist in the task. I await such refutation as I should have to either re-temper or negate the source tof events and effect.I suggest you await his response.

Are we going to allow a reference to be made to the term 'scandal' as preparation for a NPOV merging or solution to the Great Scandal material. As in:

The late John Paul II characterised the history leading to the Holocaust as a scandal , and the same term is used by secularist allegation. A contradiction as to whom the term could apply exists. The Nuremberg Trials considered the rise of Nazism during Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli's Secretary of Stateship to Pope Pius XI, to have involved apparent 'maneuver intended to deceive'. Whilst this refers to the peculiarly conspiratorial personage of Franz von Papen and the Tribunal's investigation of the Reichskonkordat as an attempt to deceive the Roman Catholic Church, it is nevertheless so stated. Pacelli co-ordinated the Holy See's negotiation and signed this document with the Nazi Government of Germany and, at the Tribunal, von Papen stalled further enquiry into the Concordat's influence on Germany by saying that deception could hardly be levelled at the persons of Cardinal Pacelli as signatory and Ludwig Kaas, the ex-Centre Party Germany Chairman. However it can be seen in this response that Papen believed he should testify that it were unreasonable to suggest Vatican deception. Scandal at any rate stuck to Papen, who was adjudged two faced and self-serving in his testimony.

Please comment re NPOV rather than placement in a future revision/merging. I see this as example towards verity in the either merged or other-wise solved future article. I must say the unfriendly tone of your post, Robert McClenon, borders on incivility and request you adjust it in light of the very considerable work left to be done towards achieving consensus. It suggests to me that you purely collect response to blacken a reasonable effort made, as is your past practice to me.

EffK 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Murder of Pius XI?

By Pacelli or known to this camerlengo ? A Cardinal Tisserant is claimed as making this accusation by Paul Williams in The Vatican Exposed. Is there no end to this ! EffK 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Avro Manhattan, and merging Hitler's Pope and and The Great Scandal

Avro Manhattan The Vatican in World Politics (1949), http://www.geocities.com/visplace/vatican11.htm[[2]] Beginning at :When Hitler was made Reich Chancellor it was the beginning of the end for German Catholicism. Not many days had gone by before he asked for an "Empowering Enactment" which would give him dictatorial powers within legal lines. As to obtain this was necessary for him to have a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag, the success or the failure of his demand depended upon whether or not the Catholic Party voted for him. In order to ingratiate himself with the Vatican and the highly placed Catholic leaders, Hitler, who had already secured the unconstitutional suppression of the Communist Party's mandates, began negotiations for the support of the Centre Party. These negotiations started in the middle of March 1933. Bruening himself and Prelate Kaas conducted them personally, and informed the Vatican of their progress in every detail. ..............

.........After the Concordat was signed, the German Hierarchy and highly placed Catholics thanked Hitler, and promised they would co-operate wholeheartedly with the Nazi Government. The Supreme Head of the German Church, Cardinal Bertram, speaking in the name of all archbishops and bishops of Germany, sent a message assuring Hitler that they were "glad to express as soon as possible their good wishes and their readiness to co-operate to the best of their ability with the new Government." Here are the actual words:

When Hitler was made Reich Chancellor it was the beginning of the end for German Catholicism. Not many days had gone by before he asked for an "Empowering Enactment" which would give him dictatorial powers within legal lines. As to obtain this was necessary for him to have a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag, the success or the failure of his demand depended upon whether or not the Catholic Party voted for him. In order to ingratiate himself with the Vatican and the highly placed Catholic leaders, Hitler, who had already secured the unconstitutional suppression of the Communist Party's mandates, began negotiations for the support of the Centre Party. These negotiations started in the middle of March 1933. Bruening himself and Prelate Kaas conducted them personally, and informed the Vatican of their progress in every detail./to herefrom Avro Manhattan The Vatican in World Politics (1949), fair use/educational http://www.geocities.com/visplace/vatican11.htm[[3]]

I refer to all the text at that link between the beginning and the end at where I show..

Far from being hate literature the Avro Manhattan dealing with Pacelli during the period 1925-1933 seems a political over-view. Could you users who insist that this is hate literature, and particularly Robert McClenon, could you state why the text concerning Hitler and the quid pro quo/ bargain are, in your view, not to be allowed as sourceable? I will if necessary place the relevant text here precisely to show the extent of "hate" and meanwhile suggest that this is an erroneous characterisation which, considering the contemporary sources, the clarity of the text and the sourced verity , proves otherwise.

I do not see that the User:Robert McClenon,given his un-sustainable assertion that such a source cannot be allowed as a source, can be easily obeyed as ordering useful solution of this important Article, or those related. I invite the User to show how he is in Wikipedia consistency in this his professed attitude, and whether he does not now feel it would be better that he desist from attempts made by him to channel that /this/ any information. The firmly channelling User:Str1977 I invite to interject any poossible definition of error concerning this relevant text, and have specific reasons for asking him to so do. I think this is all long over-due, and that this clear history now be finally viewed in whatever beneficial way is possible between us on Wikipedia. Thankyou. EffK 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[Para Marked 1] Re any Tom Harrison/ Administrator Resolution PPXII:Hi, I have left my position fairly clearl. I ask a few questions and delineate the situation as I see it. In brief, the source Manhattan is the progentior source for nearly/all/some subsequent related reports/books. I sourced c 4 different confirmatory political books published 1933-36 over my long attempt in WP. The Trials then come in as source. Then Shirer and any others in English follow the Trials. Manhattan brings a continuity from his position as observer in Europe during the era, but publishes it in 1949. He is today publicised by Chick Publications and his copyright seems to ,oddly, be regged from at least circa 1962, in a company name. Chick would appear to have some subsequent entry to it. McClenon would be at least basing his complete rejection and personal dosallowance of this first complete report, upon the Chick Literature connection. The Manhattan by association would naturally lead to the McClenon stance but the vailidity of the source as progenitor of all the at least half dozen John-Cornwell-type variations, is un-affected, or off-topic.

I second all editors who like Durova feel conter-balance must be given for Protestantism, and see that this would be very easy to link from the Scandal( easiest and most correct term for the affair) out to equivalent WP record of Protestant complicities. As you know I also second positive NPOV of POV apologia/defence/interpretation/even if demonstrable error. As with sex Abuse, the history of any denial or cover-up, the statements made during anything ,can be instructively relevant, as per the a.r.t. I do not see how I/we can be more consensual.

[Para Marked 2] Manhattan either quotes contemporary reports, or I/we have confirmed his historical stance, at least as reportable in some NPOV manner. In fact the man studied the Centre Party Germany and that which does relates to that naturally relates to Pacelli/the Church and does overlap equally with Hitler, and the German Nationalists, who are different from NSDAP, to indeed the whole era of german history. The scandal is not confined to PPXII, but to the whole nation, and the entire world. However the Unviversal Church is in a manner decribable within NPOV accused as being central before, and after the political life of Adolf Hitler.

[Para Marked 3] I have constantly been warned off Manhattan, with the result that I have been forced to build my own equivalent picture, and source it. There is no possible contention from Str1977 except to deny conclusion or concentration of the interweaving affair(selectivity). Manhattan sees 'it' as part of a continuum for hundreds of years, and of course, to make our task difficult, this appears to be not only allegation. However the Pacelli era in itself is a fairly contained part of a much larger historical picture/truth/POV. His life from canonical work to 1917 Germany, back to Rome in 29/30 as advisor and then wartime pontiff all relate to the scandal which is in its most extreme end the Holocaust and the very WWII. This is to say that the report of history needs to here in Wikipedia to catch up with the sources, and relate such important conclusions in sufficiency at all the related junctures via linkage.

I ask the other users to clarify themselves towards a consensus, and if it simply comes down to who writes the NPOV version of the POV history as negative/scandal/allegation/fact as insisted contradiction opposed to another expressed positive, I see no problem in anyone doing so. My own situation is justified in editorial terms, meaning I am personally in need of solution towards the efforts I have made towards any consensus. Finally, may I remark my questioning of the very strange comment made to you by another user, who has opted so far not to deem my question worthy of answer? It seems a little irregular, from this user.To user Shtove I will say that I use these pompous tones expressly to defend myself. Thanks EffK 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin response and merging issue

"...may I remark my questioning of the very strange comment made to you by another user..." To say "my advice is worth what you paid for it" is a common expression, kind of a self-deprecating apology. Since the listener has paid nothing for the speaker's opinion, it may be disregarded without loss. Whoever wrote that meant to humorously reduce the intensity of his expressed opinion. I am not offended by any editor's comments. If I were I would discuss it with him myself, on his talk page.

There does not seem to be any support for merging this article with Hitler's Pope and The Great Scandal. You may also be proposing that the article be re-writen to reflect a less favorable view of Pope Pius. I see no one else expressing any desire for that. It is possible that some incremental change might be made, in the form of a paragraph well-supported by citation from a reputable historian. It is also possible that items could be added to Additional reading. The suitability of each one would be determined individually. Jack Chick is vehemently Anti-catholic. I would be surprised if anything of his would be appropriate here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,i never heard such expression before. But, since I cannot solely insist that the importance requires close, determined NPOV verifiability scrutiny towards conclusive solution, then, to help you I'd better place several opinions already supporting merge of them. However I am broad minded as to positioning given accurate linkage(as yet and artificailly, absent).

Let me ask you to please attend carefully my recently marked three paragraphs, which shows that the idea that this is 'Chick' is erroneous,or it is only Manhattan equally so,or me, or you. I repeat that the copyright association and the entirely off-topic, extra-Wikipedia use of what is well supported and all verifiable(if only as POV scholarship) requires no' consideration in its subject here, however achieved outside Wikipedia. Chick makes use of the scholarship, as does a broad continuity of the non-Chick internet who care to report the subject. Wikipedia is rather odd in not representing such. This view is quite strongly attested by others than myself. I request you to not be surprised, which, given my extensive sourceing confirmation is not really the appropriate response- unless you yourself are able to in fact present the contrary proofs required. That would be joyful and eagerly awaited by everyone.

I had better present these statements from delete logs for Hitler's Pope and The Great Scandal as relevant to merging etc. and thankyou. I consider Durova's point is perhaps the way to sort this- by shifting all but minimal references and links from the Articles whichever, to the expandable because non-denominational Hitler and the Church. this can link out to pre-cursive history as appropriate. If that is the merge I would think there could be no complaint (written as per Patsw/WP/NPOV rule. I'd be over-joyed not to be involved, though I offered protestantantism sourceing throughout.

Comments for *sense of importance *merging,*or related

On this page above :

• Robert McClenon wrote:I should point out that I agree with EffK that criticisms of Pope Pius XII need to be given proper coverage. Robert McClenon 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Bengalski wrote:I agree with much of what EffK has written in his 'template'. I would further emphasise his last point: no refusal of sources.) Bengalski 11:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Patsw wrote:Wikipedia is not a place to debate the subjects of articles but for editors to summarize and to link to relevant verifiable information about the subject.

• Str1977 wrote: WP is about summing up the "state of the art", giving the consensus and reporting on controversies....that Hitler's coming to power and the passing of the Enabling Act was the result of a Vatican conspiracy and that Pacelli actively wanted to see the Centre dissolved (and not just bargained it away). For such claims EffK has no evidence.

[that relates to the statement and link and references I have provided, and is rather contradictory. Google shows the controversy as 'Pope Pius XII', in every language I read. etc etc. if it is presented as controversy, is nevertheless widely sourceable in ISBN and bfore ISBN-but I repeat myself, here. EffK]

The Great Scandal deletion log comments re merging/importance of the subject include

• Str1977 wrote: Delete as another soabox article. If this title deserves an article it should be about the article in question (analogous to Hitler's Pope) and not used as a soapbox. Str1977 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Pjacobi wrote (to Durova RE Protestants) at ditto:I'd consider your college sources to be mostly right, but this shouldn't result in separate article but be addressed in the relevant articles. --Pjacobi 11:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Durova wrote: What relevant articles would those be? I checked every one suggested and none fit. The 1933 Enabling Act is inappropriate: that was a legal device the Nazis used to gain power. This doesn't fit into a biography of any specific Nazi figure. The Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), and Hitler's Pope are all specifically Catholic discussions. Germany has a roughly equal proportion of mostly Lutheran Protestants. NPOV cannot be maintained when three separate articles cover Catholic collusion with the Nazis and none discusses Protestant collusion with the Nazis. When a thesis appears that actually treats both equally, one editor erases the Protestant component and rather than restore balance you prefer to merge it into slimly related matters or a Catholic article? Consider the gravity of the subject. Durova 15:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Artoftransformation wrote at ditto: Cleanup. Im just wondering what other article paints the pope as aquesting to Germany, because of his anti-communism. I didn't even know about it, until a WWII vetran brought it up. One of those 'missing' peices of the puzzle of WWII that never gets covered in the histry books. Should we just sweep it under the rug too? --Artoftransformation 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Denni wrote at ditto :Clean up I've heard this phrase used in the context of Pius XII. Denni☯ 05:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC

• Smerdisoftion wrote:Keep and cleanup, possibly rename. Smerdis of Tlön 17:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope discussions and its RfD deletion log garnered these:

• Anon wrote: There is an article about Pius XII that covers his biography and his dealings with Geramny. This article should eliminate this information and simply link to the main article. 214.13.4.151 16:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Str1977 wrote:As far as I can remember, FK's reason for creating this page was to use it as a platform for all his "criticism" of Pius XII which he though should be included in the Pius XII and related pages and which he couldn't because of my opposition to what I call "blackwashing"....... Str1977 19:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Str1977:then this article is about the term and the book. it is definetely not about the whole life of pius, apart from his portrayal of the book of that title, and it is most definetely not about parading your conspiracy stories, if they are not included in the book of that title (and they aren't, as far as i am aware of). Str1977 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Chowells wrote:....some interesting points. However it is, IMO, largely lengthy non-NPOV critiscism of a book.....and the useful bits could very well be merged elsewhere. chowells 19:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• 'Str1977 wrote: (at Hitler's Pope but re The Great Scandal) :But in the end, I vote for keeping a cleaned up and de-POV'ed version. Str1977 08:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Paul wrote: The book Hitler's Pope is more than notable enough to warrant an article, and while I strongly disagree with that book's sentiments, this AFD vote should end quickly with a Speedy keep. Paul 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• capitalistroadster wrote: Keep and cleanup for NPOV. Notable book about important topic. Capitalistroadster 00:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yuckfoo wrote:keep please thise subject is important too Yuckfoo 05:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Durova ? unsigned) wrote in discussion there: Added NPOV tag. After reading more about this and related articles it appears that there is an effort among some Wikipedia editors to slant related articles so that they portray the Roman Catholic Church in a positive light. While I agree with presenting the church's defense well, I do not agree with the undue weight given to its defenders.Then, added:: Looking at the Pope Pius XII article, it appears that this article amounts to a POV fork. I would support a merge/redirect to the parent article. The scholarship there is better. Durova 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon wrote: In particular, please provide a source for the use of the exact phrase "Hitler's Pope" preceding Cornwell. If you do not provide a source for the published use of that exact phrase before Cornwell, then I will have to delete that reference and leave the article only as a discussion of Cornwell's book.Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[Believe me I saw it in Manhattan as 'Nazi Pope' in the 1949 Book. Even I am slow to read all of him again.EffK 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]

Thanks, EffK, for demonstrating that Avro is "hate literature". Str1977 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This response is an example of Systemic Bias. I am allowed to report verifiable source as source, actually, until I am silenced. You and your allies are plainly against verifiability, and in lack of good will and ettiquette, you address none of the questions when asked above beacause you are in contradiction of yourself. Is there no sanity in WP ? There is so little that only Bengalski speaks the truth. Hagiography when this successful is Systemic Bias. EffK 12:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 has a good point. WP:AGF is a rule in Wikipedia, but whether authors assume good faith is sometimes a test of whether they are reliable. If Manhattan refers to Pope Pius XII as a Nazi Pope, that is a refusal to assume good faith. Cornwell, by contrast, does assume good faith, and only concludes that Pope Pius XII was Hitler's pawn because he made errors of judgment. Avro Manhattan was promoting a conspiracy theory. Robert McClenon 12:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK says that only Bengalski speaks the truth. Can Bengalski perhaps summarize what changes EffK wants made to the article? Robert McClenon 12:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Str1977 and I are arguing in favor of verifiability and against unreliable sources. Mowrer, Toland, Cornwell, and Shirer are reliable sources, but their opinions should be presented as their opinions. Avro Manhattan is, simply, not a reliable source. Robert McClenon 12:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)