Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 5

Styles infobox

A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox to this article. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Venerable, or not

I didn't see a link to the decree of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints that Pope Pius XII is a Servant of God or Venerable in the article. I didn't see any specific reference to this in some recent biographies of Pope Pius XII either. I suggest removing the venerable until it can be verfied. Speak up now if you can verify that he was declared venerable. patsw 01:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the reference. I or someone else is free to add it back when it can be verified.

Oddly enough, all the Google hits for Eugenio Pacelli venerable are cut and pasted from this very article. One would think it would be easier to find verification for this. patsw 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Both Pope John XXIII and Pope Pius XII were named Servants of God by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints with the concurrence of Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965. I will have more details and a citation later. patsw 12:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)well as u know i know thing that be poping

Cornwell in the introduction

I believe this text does not belong in the introduction:

The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures.

• This is the introduction: It's a detail that doesn't explain a fact about Pope Pius XII. It's a expansion of the previous sentence refering to the debate. It's terribly POV as well. Why mention Cornwell's biography when more detailed and complete biographies for the subject exist?

• Cornwell's own statement that he had in starting to write Hitler's Pope the "objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII" is itself disputed. Prior to starting his research he had written unfavorably about the Catholic Church and his personal faith [1].

• And since the publication of Hitler's Pope, in The Pontiff in Winter, he retracts his strongest condemnation of Pope Pius XII.

• Finally, Is there any article in the Wikipedia where the introduction has as its third or fourth sentence the POV of a critical biogragrapher? patsw 02:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an extremely short introduction. You were the one that acknowledged the importance of the book. It is important to note that Cornwell was granted access to the research to exculpate, and that his research demonstrated otherwise. This is extremely powerful and why all these editors are on this site and not on all the other Pope sites. 2 short sentences in an intro is very small, but I can make a separate intro paragraph with more on the impact if that is preferable. --Noitall 06:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer an extremely short introduction to edit wars because we cannot reach consensus as to what belongs. In the case that we do not have agreement as to what belongs, a minimal introduction does reflect consensus. Robert McClenon 12:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

To put some facts behind it, Pope John XXIII, a more recent Pope known affectionately as "Good Pope John" and "the most loved Pope in history", declared "Blessed" by Pope John Paul II, the next-to-last step on the road to sainthood, took 15 weeks to accumulate 50 edits. Hitler's Pope, on the other hand, took only 3 weeks to accumulate 50 edits. Why are they writing about Hitler's Pope and not the most loved Pope? Why, the book of course. --Noitall 06:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Given that he's actively being considered for sainthood, I think it should stay in the header. Wyss 08:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(1) Can that be verified? That is, is there is a real cause or process for him in which he has been declared a Servant of God or venerable? (2) The it is not a fact about Pope Pius XII but Cornwell's disputed POV. Why does it merit a mention in the introduction over anyone else's POV? patsw 10:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "it"'s more concrete than that, although he had certainly backed away from the Nazis by 1940. The PoV comes in when people start accusing him of being complicit in the genocide of the Holocaust... anti-semitism? Yeah. Accomplice to mass murder? Hardly. Wyss 11:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that a mention of the Cornwell criticism is relevant to the movement to advance him to sainthood. Since that is not in the introduction, I don't see why Cornwell should be either. It is my (unsourced) understanding that he has been declared a Servant of God. However, the Cornwell criticism is relevant only to the extent that it disputes whether he is qualified for sainthood. I suggest removing the reference to Cornwell from the introduction and putting it further down in the text of the article. Robert McClenon 11:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Cornwell passage from the introduction - a sentence saying there's debate on Pius and the Third Reich would be o.k. there, but not such a detailed reference which also wrongly implies that Cornwell started the debate.

I also moved the "infallibility issue" and merged it with the definition in 1950 further down. For some time I have considered the sentence as it stood to be rather circumstantial in the introduction.

As for Wyss' comments: anti-semitism? no way (Cornwell has been thoroughly debunked on this one)! Accomplice to mass murder? no way! Errors in judgment? Possibly.

Str1977 12:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thoroughly debunked? European anti-semitism is not a one dimensional thing. Wyss 12:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not "European anti-semitism" - Eugenio Pacelli's anti-semitism ... that wasn't there. (I'm not talking about anti-Judaism) And what has been debunked was Cornwell's (and Goldhagen's) use of a letter of his which allegedly proved anti-semitism. Str1977 13:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's call it "Pacelli's ambivalence" then. Wyss 14:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(Anyway with the header so short now there seems to be little need for any mention of the 3rdR in it.) Wyss 12:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the 3rdR?

Str1977 13:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Third Reich Wyss 14:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Str1977 09:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I will state it once more because it has not been disputed: the book is what made this Pope, as opposed to all others, more notable. It is the reason the world, and Wiki editors, and you, are focused on this Pope. And, separtely, most of the comments on this section are entirely inappropriate as they deal with an editor's assessment and are entirely original research. --Noitall 13:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going forward with removing the reference from the introduction. This attempt at a discussion of the editing turned into another POV-based debate. The only thing that's been added is the claim that Hitler's Pope made the subject more notable. This is false: Pope Pius XII, as all popes have been since at least the renaissance, is notable in himself. I am not not focused on Pope Pius XII because of the critical biography written by Cornwell and I'm happy to clear that up. This Wikipedia article would have been written and I would be editing it even if Cornwell had not written his book. As an aside, what facts about Pope Pius XII did Cornwell discover in his original research?

Criticism, including Cornwell's 2004 retractions should appear elsewhere in the article. As a an analogy: a reference to Cornwell belongs in the introduction like a reference to Edward Klein or Barbara Olson in the introduction to Hillary Clinton (but, of course, Olson died on 9/11 and Klein did not retract his criticism).

To Robert McClenon: I have tried and failed to find any reference to Pope Pius XII being declared venerable or a Servant of God. I investigated when this was added to the Wikipedia article and there was no announcement at that time in the non-Wikipedia world. It was and is unverified.

I'm an advocate of accuracy and not pushing an anti-Pius or pro-Pius, pro-Cornwell or anti-Cornwell agenda. Cornwell's POV does not belong in the introduction. This article to have a neutral point of view can have Cornwell's 1999 position, his 2004 position, and his critics' positions all presented fairly in the body of the article. No edit war please -- the next step will be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you want to pursue this further. patsw 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you read what I write? Do you read what you write? Your argument is that one book by author Olsen made Hillary Clinton controversial and therefore far more notable, and that she did so with the agreement of Hillary? --Noitall 03:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I slimmed down the introcution to:

"He was the only pope in the 20th century to infallibly define a dogma. His actions before, during, and after the Holocaust are subject of debate among historians and in the public."

The previous

"In the 20th century he was the only pope to exercise his Extraordinary (Solemn) Magisterium (that is, to claim Papal Infallibility) when he formally defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in his 1950 encyclical Munificentissimus Deus."

seems to me a very complicated rendering of one issue (already discussed further down). One could argue whether it belongs into the introduction at all, but since others seem to insist I have slimmed it down to the issue appearently everyone is interested in: exercise of papal infallibility.

The previous

"A debate among historians intensified with the publication of Hitler's Pope in 1999 regarding his actions before, during, and after the Holocaust. The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures."

1)the debate was there before

2)it's not only a debate among historians, but also a public debate - some contributions (Goldhagen, Hochhuth) would not be considered in historical debate

3)that C was granted access to the archives is a detail that has no place in the introduction (this article is not about C or his book)

4)C's original objective is his claim, but criticism towards how he wrote his book (what information he included and which he disregarded) makes this claim questionable

5)C's conclusion is exactly that and hence is POV - so even more out of place in the introduction

Str1977 09:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wyss, I again reworded the "infallibility" passage.

I know you strive for NPOV, but the problem is that your edit again complicates the sentence and, even more importantly, makes it inaccurate. He didn't claim to define - the fact that he defined is undisputed, but what your "claimed" intened to dispute is the "infallibility". I reworded as to say that this infallibility is part of the Catholic view.

I hope this finds your acceptance. Str1977 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Claimed is one of the words to avoid in the official Wikipedia style. It implies that a dispute exists. I have another attempt at an NPOV introduction which removes the reference to infallibility. patsw 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A one-sentence statement in the introductory paragraph acknowledging that there is continuing controversy about Pope Pius XII's actions in World War Two and whether he did enough to mitigate the Holocaust is sufficient. There is no need to refer to Cornwell in the introductory paragraph. I am not editing the introductory paragraph at this time, but it needs to be trimmed. Robert McClenon 11:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Robert, that there is absolutely no reason to refer to Cornwell in the intro. However, in my last edit I have retained the reference. I have removed the sentence pushing Cornwell's self-styling and message, but have retained the fact that his book intensified debate and that others have disputed his conclusions. I consider this to be the absolute minimum of balance (or, in other words, the absolute maximum of Cornwell in the intro.) Str1977 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that any mention of Cornwell is in order in the introductory paragraph. Basically, I disagree with the statement that the real reason Pope Pius XII is relevant is that Cornwell wrote a book about him. He is relevant because he was Pope from 1939 to 1958. Criticisms of his conduct are relevant, as is the record of his leadership of the Catholic Church. I will wait for further comments, but will then trim the introductory paragraph. Robert McClenon 11:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to jump the gun, and have already removed the Cornwell reference. Cornwell is worth a mention in the article, but certainly not in the opening paragraph summary of Pius XII's life. 214.13.4.151 12:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for Comment

Edit war over the inclusion of one writer's POV of the subject in the introduction as the third sentence of the article.

This debate intensified with the publication of Hitler's Pope in 1999. The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures. Since then, others have questioned Cornwell’s conclusions.

My reasons for including that fact there is a debate in the introduction and excluding a specific mention of Cornwell's POV are given in the Talk:Pope Pius XII#Cornwell in the introduction so I am not going to repeat what I wrote there again. There's plenty of opportunity to go into the both sides of the debate in detail in the body of the article. patsw 22:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Pat, the introduction looks ok, in its current state, without mention of Cornwell. This sentence, "His leadership of the Church during the period of World War II is the subject of continued discussion, especially in light of his tenure as Papal Nuncio to Germany and later as Vatican Secretary of State," seems to indicate other points of view on the subject and leaves details for later. That's just my take, but the "who" of the other views is not so important as is the "what," and that is mentioned, so I think it's OK. That's just my view.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Responding to RFC: I'm inclined to agree with excluding this from the introduction. At most I would say that controversy exists, and go into it further down in the article. Anything other than a passing mention unbalances the introduction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion on this page, with several undisputed issues. To restart the debate all over because Patsw don't like the arguments or because the article is not pro-Catholic enough for his POV (as on his talk page) is editing in bad faith. --Noitall 01:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I deny that I have been editing in bad faith - the fact that I followed the Wikipedia protocol and did not revert and started this Request for Comment is evidence of good faith. In my user page I make it clear that I seek to correct anti-Catholic POV in articles such as this one. By saying there's a debate and letting the details appear in the body of the article is being neutral.

Exactly what is undisputed about the issue of inserting Cornwell's POV in the introduction? What are your arguments for inserting Cornwell's POV in the introduction? You suggested above notability was the reason. This is false: Pope Pius XII, as all popes have been since at least the renaissance, is notable in himself. Cornwell's biography was neither the first, nor the best, nor the most comprehensive, nor the bestselling - it simply seems to be the one to have presented a POV that you want to push.

What other biographical articles have a critical biographer's POV as its third sentence in the Wikipedia? 02:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway, I have no particular POV on this article, and I don't know or care what Patsw's is. Anyone can put out a request for comments about an article; it's a good thing to do when you think you're right and are having trouble getting your point across to other editors; often fresh eyes can be helpful. My eyes find the Cornwell citation in the introduction clumsy, and it gives Cornwell's book more weight than it should at this point in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Cornwell's assessment. I also happen to agree with the current introductory paragraph with the reference to Cornwell deleted. This is not only a matter of what POV we stress, but of judgment as to what is proper encyclopedic focus. Robert McClenon 08:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No matter my opinion on Cornwell, his view, which should be included in the article, is not that important that it should be mentioned in the introduction. --Irmgard 10:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess I just have to keep getting my comments and cutting and pasting them over and over again when a new discussion arises. Too many of these comments concern what editors think of Cornwell's work or what they think of this Pope. Or they state whether an editor thinks they are important as compared to its impact on the public assessment. Those are all just pure violations of WP:NOR. Here are my old comments:

• patsw himself acknowledged the importance of the book, stating he wants to "refocus on the Holocuast and indicate what event intensified the debate" [2]
• The book is what made this Pope, as opposed to all others, more notable. It is the reason the world, and Wiki editors, including Patsw and the Anons, are focused on this Pope.
• To put some facts behind it, Pope John XXIII, a more recent Pope known affectionately as "Good Pope John" and "the most loved Pope in history", declared "Blessed" by Pope John Paul II, the next-to-last step on the road to sainthood, took 15 weeks to accumulate 50 edits. Hitler's Pope, on the other hand, took only 1 week to accumulate 100 edits. Why are they writing about Hitler's Pope and not the most loved Pope and the one who is actually on the road to sainthood? Why, the book of course.

--Noitall 12:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• • Are you sure that your conclusions aren't in themselves original research? I'll discard the edit count issue, since that has no bearing on anything other than people's desire to edit a particular article. One can as easily conclude that the book's visibility is due to Pius's historical importance and perceived (and perhaps real) moral ambiguity, not the other way around. Another comparison: We don't mention Goldhagen in the intro to The Holocaust. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Goldhagen, whoever he or she is, did not make the Holocaust more notable than other general holocausts through history. That is the proper analogy. The edit count issue, entirely related to this Pope's role in history, is simply an acknowledgement that other editors find this Pope more notable for exactly those reasons, whether they want to acknowledge it or not. --Noitall 17:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • See Daniel Goldhagen, another quite-newsworthy author and historian. Whose conclusion is it that Cornwell has made Pius more notable than other Popes through history? This is not a challenge -- back that up with sufficient external references and I'll concede your point that Cornwell belongs in the intro. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Goldhagen is no historian. He's a sociologist moving beyond his field - with according results. Str1977 19:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am puzzled by the comments of Noitall. First, it appears that Noitall is taking a very expansive interpretation of what is impermissible original research. I did not think, and do not think, that the statement of opinions or points of view on article talk pages is original research. Every editor has a point of view and opinions, and that does not disqualify him or her from editing and from presenting those points of view on article talk pages, as long as he or she is able to present neutral point of view on article pages. Second, it is important to distinguish between the edit history of Pope Pius XII and of Hitler's Pope. This article, which is Pope Pius XII, is a biography of a Pope. He is notable because he was Pope. The Pope John XXIII article is similarly notable because he was Pope. The Hitler's Pope article, on the other hand, is notable because it is a strong criticism of a Pope. It attracted 100 edits in one week because the book and its POV are the subject of controversy. Also, it attracted 100 edits in one week because it is, in my opinion, a terrible article. It was (when I last edited it, which is a few weeks ago) very badly edited, and tried to present the POV of the author of the book as fact, and was very much of an attack piece. It should have been heavily edited.

This biography and the summary of the book are not the same article. The difference between the book and [[Pope Pius XII] is why the Wiki editors, including Patsw and the anons, are focused on this Pope. Some of us are trying very hard to ensure that a neutral, perhaps even dry, statement of his biography is presented here, so that the book article can speak for itself.

It is true that the book article largely duplicates the biographical material in this article. I disagree with that duplication, and tried to remove biographical material from the book article that was also in this article. It has apparently been restored, probably by an editor who thinks that I am censoring him.

What most of the editors of this article want to do is to separate the summary of the life of Pope Pius XII with the case against him presented by John Cornwell. The book is notable because it criticizes the Pope. The Pope is notable because he was Pope. Robert McClenon 14:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Robert McClenon's comments above. On the question of notability: Pope John XXIII was pope for less than five years and Pope Pius XII was pope for 19 years including all of World War II and the start of the Cold War. In any case, we're editing an article here, ranking relavtive notability is not part of that task. The origin of the criticism of Pope Pius XII has to be better developed in the article, but it certainly did not start in 1999 with the publication of Hitler's Pope, but with Communist propaganda in retaliation for Catholics organizing for religious freedom in Eastern Europe at the time Communists were seeking to suppress the Church. patsw 16:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Robert and Pat. Poped John is less controversial, for a couple of reasons: his pontificate was shorter, before it he mostly filled rather obscure posts (vs. Pius as secretary of state), he's such a "cute" guy so everybody loves him and "critics" would have to work harder, he called the Council which is generally approved of generally (by me too, of course) and which led to him being misrepresented as a "liberal" (the same logic feeds into Pius' being controversial: Pius, though already considering the Council, was the laste Pope before it, so he's blasted as the "conservative", and also because of his "grander" style which seems to us contemporaries as from another age (in some sense it was) as papal style has changed so much).

Str1977 19:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII and the Council

Do you have a source that states that Pope Pius XII was considering calling a Second Vatican Council? If so, that is useful information to add. Robert McClenon 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't. I have read it somewhere that he considered it but wanted to wait until post-war reconstruction had been achieved. If I find it again, I will post a link to it or send you the document (if the link should be dead). In contrast to other editors I post only substantiated stuff in articles. Str1977 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware of multiple editors who post unverifiable material, or one editor? Robert McClenon 22:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe he could verify what he posted, but we don't know because he won't do it. I thought you understood my innuendo.Str1977 22:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I did understand the innuendo. Robert McClenon 23:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If this article is going to move forward, all the editors are going to need to follow the rules of the Wikipedia and provide citations as a sign of good faith in editing. Otherwise, expect to see many "rm: unverifiable, uncited" in the edit history. patsw 22:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, practically I'm asuming good faith. I'm long beyond the point of active suspicion. Str1977 23:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, there are a few items that do not need sources if they are verifiable from multiple sources, such as the dates of his various positions. But that is a nitpick. Robert McClenon 23:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What this article is about

• Verifiable significant facts about Pope Pius XII: what he said, wrote, and did.
• A summary of the points of view (i.e. analysis, criticism, speculation) that have appeared in other media with citations and drawing material from both sides of controversial issues to achieve neutrality in the article. patsw 01:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Notability or style

Addressing jpgordon∇∆∇∆'s issue, pretty far up there because of all the noise and original research that followed (the fact that an editor removes and reverts properly sourced and cited materials that is an accurate characterization of Cornwell's influence on the issue and is a balanced account of the issue because they disagree with Cornwell or because they think Cornwell inaccurate is pure original research). Anyhow, this is to provide some information on notability. Now we can debate what it means.

• 16,700 for "Hitler's Pope"[3]
• 26,600 for "John Cornwell"[4]
• 317,000 for "Pius XII"[5]
• 5 other major books immediately after Hitler's Pope[6] (only 1 book before Cornwell's, by Pierre Blet)
• 208,000 for "John XXIII"[7]
• 902 for "Good Pope John"[8]

--Noitall 02:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

What are those numbers? Noitall's units of notability?

Where in the Wikipedia is notability calibrated? And for what purpose?

And how are they supposed to persuade one that Cornwell's point of view (and his alone) belongs in the introduction? It's not a numerical calculation but an editing decision to have a neutrally worded introduction and let the POV's appear in the article body.

Are you asserting that Pope Pius XII was obscure and undeserving of a Wikipedia article but for Cornwell's book? patsw 03:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you might be trying to push a POV, but you don't have to make it so obvious. Google is a commonly used method for evidence of notability on Wiki. And I was addressing jpgordon∇∆∇∆ who at least acts like he has an open mind on such issues --Noitall 07:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cornwell's notability is not disputed by any editor.

What's the connection between 16,700 hits on Google for Hitler's Pope, 26,600 for John Cornwell and the inclusion of Cornwell's POV into the introduction and not in the body of the article? Are you asserting that Pope Pius XII was obscure and undeserving of a Wikipedia article but for Cornwell's book? Among critics of Pope Pius XII, Cornwell doesn't even rank the highest according to Google. How many of those 26,600 hits for John Cornwell are pointing out his errors of fact and anti-Pius bias, by the way?

Did any non-editor of this article particpating in the RfC support the inclusion of Cornwell's POV in the introduction?

I've written already that I want a neutrally worded introduction and part of the body of the article to reflect the points of view of critical of and supporting Pope Pius XII. Do you want something else? patsw 14:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't question that Google is sometimes used as a measure of notability with respect to Votes for Deletion. However, it has serious limitations. Most Google hits are indications of short-term notability, not of historical notability, much of which reflects events that preceded the invention of the WWW. Encyclopedic merit should be the basis of inclusion in the introductory paragraph, and that is a matter of judgment, which cannot be based simply on a count. Robert McClenon 14:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Basing the content of an introductory paragraph on Google hits is similar to trying to base a disambiguation link on Google hits. There was a very contentious survey over whether Lincoln should go primarily to Abraham Lincoln or to Lincoln (Nebraska). There were more hits on Lincoln, Nebraska. However, a majority of Wikipedians agreed that Abraham Lincoln was more notable and should be the primary redirect. Sometimes Google is a reasonable first-order indication of notability. Sometimes it is distorted by current events. Robert McClenon 14:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's because Lincoln, Nebraska was named after Abraham Lincoln, and thus the Google citation was misleading as to which was more notable. There was a ton of other evidence that showed notability in that one, just as there is in this one, such as:

1. huge disparity in articles between a more recent good Pope put up for sainthood and the earlier Pope associated with Hitler
2. huge disparity in nicknames, even though one is relatively recent
3. Cornwell's book and its success generated tons of additional research and books directed at this Pope
4. recent huge puplic interest in this Pope due to Cornwell's book

was asked to give evidence as to why this notable information should be included here, and I did. --Noitall 03:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

One additional item that I want to make clear for those who have edited on articles with me before. I do not mind my edits or insertions being edited. What I mind, as here, is when there are obviously other motivations and that results in revertions and absolute blanking. So far, there has been a total whitewash here. I think it is entirely appropriate to cite problems in Cornwell's research or whatever. But there should not be a whitewash of this important and notable information. This Pope is notable and continues to be notable, among other things such as his controversial actions, and also because of recent popular scholarship. It should not be whitewashed. --Noitall 03:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still keeping my opinion regarding Pius and regarding Cornwell's work out of this -- and I'm only concerning myself, for the moment, with the introduction. The article isn't about Cornwell, Cornwell's book, or Cornwell's opinions. It's about Pius. It suffices to say in the intro that the controversy exists (see below); after all, Cornwell wasn't the first one to have problems with Pius's actions during WWII. Or, as I said a little while ago, At most I would say that controversy exists, and go into it further down in the article. Anything other than a passing mention unbalances the introduction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not, it is unbalanced right now and I provided plenty of objective evidence, even according to your request. --Noitall 07:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely yes, there is absolutely no basis for including Cornwell into the introduction. Note this is only about the intro. If you think it unbalanced right now, then say what troubles you and we will see what we can do. Str1977 07:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It is just as much POV pushing to keep out objective sourced information as to try to insert POV info.--Noitall 08:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If we were talking about the article on the whole, then yes, but here the argument is only about the intro. It should say who is this and what are the basic things everyone should know. If controversy plays a big factor, this should be noted, but the role of individual contestants in this controversy doesn't belong there (or we should have to include everyone which would explode the bounds of this intro.) Str1977 08:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That is not true whatsoever. The intro is only different in the potential level of detail, but simple mentions and 2 sentences about such things are an entirely appropriate level of detail for the intro. --Noitall 14:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you say it is, and I say it isn't. Our opinions aren't anything that can be backed by facts; it's a matter of stylistic preference. Perhaps what we need to look at comparable situations in Wikipedia to see if there is a prevailing style choice (I haven't found a Wikipedia policy or guideline that actually governs such a choice). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Noitall that the "intro is only different in the potential level of detail" - and Cornwell's book is such a detail in the greater issue of controversy. Hence Cornwell has no part in the intro. Str1977 17:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. We have some agreement. Of course, I stated that 2 sentences to address such an issue is a very brief and appropriate section for a summary, which is goes hand in hand with the appropriate level of detail. But, in fact, you may be arguing (I'll give you an option to disagree here) that 2 words, "Hitler's Pope", are 2 words too long, and if you are arguing as such, then we would know that the statements you made are entirely disengenuous and the true intention is to whitewash this subject and protect a POV. But I'll give you the option of arguing otherwise. --Noitall 23:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll argue otherwise. The very title, "Hitler's Pope", is itself inflammatory, which is good for a book title but not so good for an NPOV encyclopedia article introduction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, the term Hitler's Pope is inflammatory, as well as holocaust, Rape of Nanjing, etc., but we do not whitewash them. The “inflammability” only makes it more notable and important to include. As mentioned and sourced above, it is also a commonly referred to term and research concerning this Pope. In fact, that proves my point, removing a statement because it is “inflammable” is directly POV pushing. --Noitall 00:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Or it's POV preventing. I suggest you back off from the POV accusations here -- it's not helping any of us develop the article. Holocaust is what it's generally called. Rape of Nanjing is what it's generally called (except by the Japanese). "Hitler's Pope" is not what Pius is generally called. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there anywhere in print or on the net in agreement with Noitall's position that but for the publication of Hitler's Pope and the POV of John Cornwell contained therein, Pope Pius XII would not be notable?

This is absurd on it's face:

• Rolf Hochhuth is first with this POV of Pope Pius XII in history -- some some 36 years before Cornwell.
• Daniel Goldhagen sold many more books and has more Google hits with the Pius XII was silent/complicit POV.
• James Carroll sold many more copies of Constantine's Sword which devotes 100 pages to criticism of Pope Pius XII.
• Peter Godman is the most recent critic of the Pope with this POV. ISBN 0743245970 and he had even greater access to archives that Cornwell reported to have.

Even if you want this POV in the introduction as opposed to a neutrally worded statement that a debate exists -- which as you can see from reading other biographical articles in the Wikipedia is exactly how it has handled where historians have differing points of view about their subjects -- why Cornwell and not Hochhuth, Goldhagen, Carroll, and/or Godman or a dozen other Pius critics? patsw 02:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To Jpgordon, 16,700 references, it can not be ignored, actually whitewashed. When someone gives sources and coherent arguments, all that is left for the opposition is POV. Patsw, both your thinking and your POV are really too much to take. First, you totally ignored the argument I made above addressing the book sources. People who either can't or won't read what I stated show their bias. Second, your argument is ridiculous. That's like saying we should not mention that William Clinton was a Governor or impeached because they did not make him notable. I guess this is my final attempt to achieve some consensus. I am not certain why I try and try, providing sources and rationale, when you all insert unbalanced statements in the summary as "He worked to promote peace and protect the Church during a turbulent time of war." I mean, do you think your job here is to do the Pope's work or something? --Noitall 03:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I read everything you've written here. I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by you totally ignored the argument. when I'm addressing it head-on John Cornwell's 448 pages in 1999 did not make the otherwise unnotable Pope Pius XII notable. (Nor did Hochhuth, Goldhagen, Carroll, or Godman)

• To the charge the I want to make the focus of the Pope Pius XII article, Pope Pius XII -- I plead guilty.
• To the charge that I want a neutrally worded introduction mentioning the present debate over his conduct during the Holocaust -- without a specific reference to Cornwell's POV expressed in Hitler's Pope -- I plead guilty.
• It's a fact that Clinton was impeached. But when I look at the introductory paragraph of the article I don't see a mention of Because He Could by Dick Morris or any other critical biography. It's mentioned in Further Reading at the end because that's where it belongs.
• I was unable to find any biographical article in which the author and a book expressing a critical POV of the article's subject appears in the introductory paragraph.
• "...turbulent time of war" [9] is the edit of 214.13.4.151 and not mine. I actually think it is poorly written as tubulent time of war is a cliche -- but I am following the Wikipedia protocol by not editing the introduction which is the subject of this Request for Comment -- Dispute Resolution process. And I've not edited the introduction since I started to seek a resolution of this question of the Cornwell reference in the introduction. We'll now proceed to the next step. patsw 04:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You say you read, but you obviously have an inability to understand what I have made clear. The book did not make the Pope notable. The book greatly increased worldwide interest and research and scholarship in this Pope's actions before he became Pope, during World War II and during the holocaust (much of which happened prior to the war). I can't make it any more simple than that. Do your best to understand, please. --Noitall 05:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Noitall, if there were one book that alone caused this controversy, or rather this accusation with no real controversy because everyone acceeded you might have a point (though it'd still be a stylistic issue), but the thing is: Cornwell did start the issue (and even claims he had other things in mind), he didn't finish the issue and his view is hardly universally accepted. If we include Cornwell (who is mentioned further down and whose book has even his own article) in the intro, why not mention others of his POV (Hochhuth could be discarded as not being scholarly, but I have included him as the one who started this) and why not mention the opposing view with authors and books? No, it's quite enough for the intro to mention the controversy. Of course, the intro could make use of some overhauling, but that's another issue. Str1977 07:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you said and it is the most reasonable point for discussion. In the intro, the reason we don't need to specifically mention by name all the research and scholarship that came after is because it did not do anything more notable than to follow the trend and it should all be summarized in a sentence or two. In my original edit, I had a statement that described the opposing point of view or contentions, saying "Since then, others have questioned Cornwell’s conclusions." I believe it appropriate to expand or modify this statement. --Noitall 12:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Can we get away from this "notability" discussion, which seems at the moment to be deadlocked, and dicuss the style issue instead? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)