User talk:EffK/Archive 6

=Pacelli in Wikipedia=

Archive 1
However, comments on a single pope are better placed here than at Catholicism. Martin 09:42, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) Lawrence King
 * Existing page The present state of this article on Pius XII justifies my intervention as balance is now being allowed . A new user could perhaps fairly attempt to erase unwelcome references but all current users here should accept the validity of this balance now and preserve this state .Flamekeeper 09:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Existing I think the answer is that this is an interesting point of view, and one that should be in the article - attributed to named advocates, such as John Cornwell. Wikipedia cannot call people Nazi sympathisers, but we can report on accusations made by other people. Martin 09:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Existing Unsupported? He gives two references - that's not unsupported.
 * New page FWIW, to get a proper perspective on Pius XII and his relationships with the several Fascist dictators, you have to trace Vatican politics back at least to the period of the French Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento. Pius XII's chummyness with the Nazis and with Fascist dictators was in fact founded on the traditional politics and policies of the Papacy. This material probably does indeed belong in Catholicism, or better yet, in an article on Roman Catholic Church separate from Catholicism. -- IHCOYC 13:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * New Page What was removed and is at the top of the page here is simplistic and one sided and has no place in that form in any encyclopædia. The issue needs discussing but in a proper, professional NPOV manner. I think it would make more sense to put the issue in a broader narrative perspective as IHCOYC observed, perhaps Roman Catholicism and right wing politics. FearÉIREANN 18:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * DenialismThe anonymous edit of 23.15 hrs 01 April 05 was not minor and seriously affected the historical facts in this matter to do with Cardinal Pacelli .[FK/EffK]
 * Neutral ? Trödel|talk
 * Neutral But it occurs to me that you might be objecting to the combination of all four of 24.91.137.38's edits on that date. These do include some substantial changes.
 * Denialism:Excision I claim that many of the edits made since I tried to fill in the historical facts of meetings result in a distortion of history . Therefore I have shortened the interpolation of those outstanding facts and equally simplified the distortionate assertions since included . I feel this to have been even-handed as the facts are already for some time accepted on the main nazi party page [FK/EffK]
 * Expand [Incl Mussolini] User:Discordian|Discordian]] 14:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral Smerdis of Tlön

Archive 2

 * Neutral? Jwrosenzweig
 * Denialiam The source for the Kaas movements is The Catholic Church and Germany by Guenter Lewy, from OUP. I remove disputed as suggested Flamekeeper 07:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Denialism: Enabling Act Importance All this ranting of Flamekeeper presupposes that the passing of the Enabling Act, as deplorable as it might be, is the one thing to look at..... Hitler could have been dismissed any time until Hindenburgs death. Str1977 23:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand My linkage is un-clear, due to the multi-faceted nature of this case. FK
 * Denialism Argument:QpQ bt Str1977 There was a “quid pro quo” between Kaas and Hitler in regards to guarantees for the Zentrum. Hitler only noticed them, but Kaas described it (whether intentionally or by mistake) them to be accepted. Of course the letter in question never came. It was very foolish of him to expect Hitler to respect guarantees once he had attained that much power (he should have better listened to his “life long friend” Pacelli, who had a clear view of Nazism already then ....– and the Ermächtigungsgesetz certainly is one of the major steps toward Nazi tyranny, though not the only one. My criticism against your post was mainly, that you portray this bill as the one and only and decisive step and that, had the Zentrum not given its consent (as they should have IMO), Hitler would have been dead politically right away. Noone knows what would have happened [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument: Dilectissima Nobis You claim they were sympathetic, but don't give any proof for that. It's not in the encyclical you cited. Now you refer to Faulhaber statements without citing them. Yes, the Holy See knew of the evil – but it didn't side with it. [Str1977]
 * Exonerating Source request We would also like to know of any information you might provide concerning the Kaas visits to Pacelli and the Pacelli communications back to Kaas, or anything emanating from the Vatican to elucidate any benign motivation. FK
 * Denialism Argument:Kaas' Pacelli Visit But if you want a benign speculation: they probably discussed Hitler’s rise to power, the danger that posed to the Church and christian civilization, whether something could be done against it and what that something might be. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument: Dilectissima Nobis To the encyclical which amounts to allowing a future dictatorship, to changes in rules of conduct within the church and for its adherents concerning nazism, changes in attitudes by bishops, cardinal, promulgation of agrement with hitler as beneficial. Come on, its not me, Pal. [FK]
 * Denialism Argument:Timeline form The thing is, you don't give any motivation in the entry. That spares you the trouble of giving evidence. You just say, Kaas met Hitler then, Kaas met Pacelli then, Kaas met Hitler then … I don't dispute that, but what are you trying to say? That's were innuendo comes in.... Of course there was involvement between church-men and the party, but of what kind? of what content? You’re using innuendo to hint at something sinister, but provide no proof.....There's nothing in the encyclical that's contrary to Romans 3,8. This verse doesn't say that monarchy is evil, or democracy is good. That verse says, we shouldn't do evil to attain good. [Str1977]
 * Expand Great odium lies in the papal under-mining of democracy – then and now. This is why you are quite wrong to think this can only be a discussion on one Pope's page....The under-mining of democracy is plainly the accusation, there is no admission nor correction. The only possible hope for stimulating a correction is to cite the Church LAW back at the church. I am serious and I do. FK
 * Denialism Argument:Centre statistics My statistics tell me the Zentrum was pretty stable all the way from start to finish. [Str1977]
 * Wrong -this annoys- Centre vote fell from 19.7 % of the electoral vote in 1919 down steadily to 11.7 in 1933. it is discussed by historians just how pleased the |vatican would be to dispense with the party and its unmanageable and -I agree- its disparate elements. FK


 * Denialism Argument: Concordat We should like to see an analysis which would more clearly relate, yes, back to the Concordat and the other many concordats. No one denies that the desire for the German Concordat was other than beneficial.FK
 * Hitler’s government, as deplorable as he was, provided an opportunity to come to an agreement, as his government coalition (yes it still was one at first) had a stable majority. Str1977


 * Denialism Argumenmt:Legal Appearance Pacelli was like everyone else who was taken in by the Fuhrer. However unlike everyone else Pacelli had a professed duty to uphold the moral order. He consciously failed. What people should realise is that Hitler did not wish to wrench power but wished to receive it willingly thus providing him with all the justification he needed then, or indeed, now. The publicity coup accorded Hitler by the Holy See's concordat was tremendous and undoubtedly allowed that much greater evil to evolve. This is a factor in why so many german people were so fooled. But Pacelli knew from Church reports that he was backing a monstrosity of genocidal proposals and brutality. FK
 * No, Pacelli saw the nature of that party very early. Hitler wanted the power, how was of secondary concern. He took the "legal way", because the revolutionary approach of Röhm didn't seem rewarding to him (it failed in 1923, after all). There might be a publicity coup (though some dispute that), but you overestimate the importance, especially given that it still was just another government (from the 1933 perspective), and underestimate the risk of letting the opportunity pass by, the risk of having to deal with the same regime and the same tyrant without a concordat. [Str1977]


 * Denialsim Argument: Statistics/Joachim Fest I respect Dr. Fest very much, but if his quote was referring to the actual vote on the bill, he’s wrong, as numbers show. (Though further machinations could have dealt with a Zentrum problem as well as it did with Communists and Social Democrats), but if he’s talking about the whole strain of events, he might agree with my point, that it was not the Zentrum alone that could have turned the tide, certainly not at this hour.[Str1977]
 * Obfuscation, as in politics, seeks to deflect. I do not say the Centre is alone in reponsibility, but it helps you to suggest I do.FK


 * Expand inferred . Also a serious discussion can only take place if one meets in one single space. Anyone interested can home here. [Str1977]
 * Expand inferred In regard to “The Law”, as you call it, the question is whether the events in question were a mere toleration or an active cooperation in evil. This all should be discussed bit by bit and one by one, i.e. if Kaas cooperated in evil, that doesn’t mean that Pacelli also did, let alone the Pope. [Str1977]


 * Denialism argument: Kaas in thrall It is widely stated that Pacelli and Kaas were hand in glove, Kaas in thrall to Pacelli.FK
 * So it is widely stated? At lot of things are: It is widely stated that an UFO landed in Roswell. That doesn't make them true. Again I did not censore anything. [Str1977]


 * Denialsim argument :romans Law Where does the Church break her own law? Even if the three people did in 1933 (I don't think they did, except maybe Kaas, and these three don't make up the Church), where is she doing it now?...The Church always has and always will struggle to persuade people to adhere to the law, yes, and it will always fail.[Str1977}
 * Denialism Christian Dictatorship:Dilectissima Nobis The editing of christian dictatorship from the article upon Pius XII is a semantic ploy to diminuish the odours emanating from the quid pro quo.
 * deleted it because you give no source for that term.[Str1977]
 * I repeat that this is an abbreviation of the text of the Encyclical as referred to. It is used by the holocaust timeline organisation humanitas who cite Guenter Lewy for Kaas and Pacelli and Bishops and cardinals and papal audiences and secretary of State meetings, ambassadorial meetings and comments, press comment. It is accurate as to the contents of the encyclical and is merely an abbreviation of the text. FK
 * It isn't there! Simply not there! How can it be an abbreviation?...I have read the encyclical (Spelling!) and it seemed to me fairly reasonable.  [Str1977]
 * No, no. If we are to believe we must hold to the law. it is self-evidently beyond the moral order now after we have instituted constitutional democracy, to advocate aristocratic and monarchical rule. Hitler was a monarch - for 12 years. Your morality, user, is again highly objectionable. EffK
 * And is Spain now worse off than it was in 1933? After all, the monarchy toppled in 1931 has returned! The reaction has triumphed, or has it? [Str1977]
 * the words christian dictatorship precisely abbreviate the relevant import from the encyclical, EffK
 * What does that mean? I can’t find the words in the document. And I can’t find it relating to anything in the document...As for the Church, as the cited encyclical shows, she can live under various forms of government and cooperate with them, if only her liberties are respected. [Str1077]
 * Here you have it. The church can live with various forms of government - the Church was able with equanimity to contemplate and assist in the rise of Hitlerism. This is the reason why we should fear the church now. Ye need to recant I say, for the liberties of the church are as nought when compared to the abandonment of the moral order of humanity. Precisely the accusation is that to save itself, the Church abandoned Humanity. You say it should or could again - you are shocking. You must hold to the law, the law of Jesus, not of preservation of the church. You are deeply immoral. FK
 * Again, the Church did not "contemplate and assist in the rise of Hitlerism" – some of her members might have, e.g. Kaas, Papen, in a way even Brüning, but not the Church....The liberties of the Church and the moral order of humanity go hand in hand. Whenever a government violated one of them, it also violated the other. [Str1977]
 * Expand beatification PPXII/Bush Kerry If the three did cooperate in evil, their case has now moved on into a higher court. (with a small exception in case of Pius XII, as he is also scrutinized by the Congregation for Beatifications – but even if he’s beatified, that doesn’t mean he’s without sin – noone is, but God is merciful – only that he’s found to be now in heaven.) The Church's job is not to judge the dead, that's God's faculty. [Str1977]]
 * You reveal yourselves to be very dangerous immoral people. You will have to be controlled, like an extremist organisation if you do not modernise and present yourelves as adhering to Romans 3,8. ....That George W.Bush raised from circa 48 to circa 52 per cent (or whatever) of votes cast because of the intervention through Romans 3,8 because of Pope Benedict XVI's direct admonition against complicity with evil, makes the thirties history no more than completely relevant to such as would even lazily, prefer forgetfulness. EffK
 * Be that as it may, it was not the then Cardinal Ratzinger that opened the question, but Kerry with his running for office and the bishops for admonishing him for his views....>> A Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abort politician on the basis of his support for abortion. That’d be formal cooperation in evil. However, a Catholic can vote for a pro-abort politician for other, proportionate reasons. << [Str1977]


 * Denialism Argument-Conspiracy/legality To anyone with a heart, the import however, of the thirties contradiction or conspiracy consists inthat the entire of modern world history emanates, in all its terrible tragedy, from this one battle between the forces of absolutist (dare one still suggest it given this contradiction ) truth and those of Communism....The truth is the bosses broke their own law to save the company, leaving real people to weep in pain and suffering and death. What is reported as historical truth shows this hypocrisy, therefore I refer to it in such sadness and irony. EffK
 * Well, we don't agree whether a law was broken or by whom. Yes real people wept in pain and suffering and death. And only One can dry these tears. But who caused this tears: Hitler, the German government, the German army, the German people. I'm aware of the guilt and the responsibility, believe me – as a German. But the Church is and was were her place is: among the weeping. [Str1977]


 * Denialism Argument Truth/faith Of course, in this life we cannot attain truth with any absolute assurance (see 1 Cor 13).... . I cannot prove to you that my faith is right, I have to believe, in a way, I have to bet on it and see whether my bet wins in the end or not. ....I don't see where Romans 3 was abandoned in this situation by anyone … or ever by the Church (again: the Church is more than just a couple of people)...I don't want to sound like McCarthy, but nonetheless: Are you a Communist? '' [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument Pacelli inncocent Regardless of the chronological problems, Pacelli didn't institute any dictatorship. You might have problems with the concordat – but that didn't put Hitler into power. [Str1977]
 * Sadly it now appears that a Pope decided in so far as he could to put himself on the side of actual War....stop trying to hide the motive, the weapon, the wherebouts, the effects....you yourself concisely termed it as resulting in meaninglessness. this reveals the deep despair hiding in your catholic soul, and should be a warning to the rest of us human beings that we should really make more effort to bring you lost sheep back into the fold of humanity. before you commit further acts of harm. This is not an end, but a beginning.

EffK Flamekeeper 19:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 10:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Flamekeeper 19:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Str1977 22:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC

Archive 3

 * Denialism Argument: Memoria e Identidad Well, I note that finally you allow reference to Memory and Identity and the criticism of democracy contained therein (according to the newswire) and maybe this is indicative of a change. however the fact remains that you delete and whitewash at every opportunity. Still today you refuse to allow that the Jewish consternation reported on television is allowable . EffK
 * Never did I reject a reference to "Memory and Identity" – the book refers to the events of Hitler's "Machtergreifung" – though I doubt the book has raised the debate you claim it has. [Str1977]
 * New page?. I don't "refuse to allow that the Jewish consternation reported on television" – we had that in Germany too –, though I totally disagree with it, but it should be put in its proper place.


 * Denialism Argument/truth & responsibility Who says Hitler was right? I said, if there were (that's subjunctive irrealis) no truth, if there were (s.i.) a truth for me and some other truth for you and still another truth for someone else, then we could not fault him....However, there is truth, as you yourself affirm, though we might disagree about some things. We have to look at what really happened and what sources tell us and be very careful. We mustn't take a broad sweep at "co-operation" – that's a really broad term. And we have to consider each case on its own. So by saying that Kaas might be guilty of what you accuse him of, doesn't make Pacelli or Pius XI guilty of it. (Look up Socrates' behaviour at the trial of the generals, Athens 406 B.C.). I can't see where either Pius is guilty of a "formal cooperation with evil" or of breaking Romans 3.  [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Diletissima Nobis BTW I have sent the DN encyclica to my protestant friend and he hasn't found anything about your claims in there. [Str1977]
 * Denialsim argument/canonicals And you refused to tell, what issue of canon law you were referring to, i.e. whether political involvement was prohibited/regulated under the canon law code in force back then. If it was regulated as you state, I guess Kaas had papal permission (that is back in 1919, when he entered politics). Pacelli on the other hand was acting as a representative of the Church, first as nuntius, than as secretary....Yes it is impious to call for a removal of someone from his grave and you still have to cite canon law for the provision that this must be done '' [Str1977]Str1977 30 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)
 * YOU say this, but after I have quoted the canonical texts and left their link/provenance (which are now showing under 'canonical' on Hitler's pope discussion page )....I shall search now for the year of the insertion of the political bar in canonical law, and if it is in the later modernised law , then it would have been drafted by the self-same Eugenio Pacelli . FK


 * Denialsim Argument/Str1977 as defender I regret to note that since you represented in your argumentation hitherto and throughout, an increasingly defensive 'church ' posture , that any tough criticisms or qualifications of that institution became increasingly applicable to yourself as their advocate .As such criticism appears historically and canonically (if not penally) justified , you yourself took what was initially purely directed towards the institution as personal towards you (see Str 1977 ) , even as I slipped into addressing your defence similarly ....Sir, if it pains you to answer on behalf of your church , let another arise and answer , call to your superior now , as I feel sure you can , and ask that you be relieved . FK.Famekeeper 8 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
 * Denialism Arguments/Robert McClenon Intervention . He[FK] has been saying for some time that arbitration is required about the truth. Famekeeper appears to have been saying that Str1977 has been engaging in censorship by deleting his statements of sourced fact....I agree with Famekeeper that the arguments for moral complicity by Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII should be presented as points of view held by some scholars. I disagree with any claim that there has been proof of moral complicity ....I do not think that it can be written by Famekeeper, who does not understand the difficult concept of NPOV . Can he at least present a summary of what his case is? If not, can he at least state briefly what the censorship is? RM{cClenon}
 * You say I cannot understand NPOV but you spend your whole time in this defending biased editing . I have not been removing relevant scholars all the way thru ...so why don't you get up a vote : should FK be forced to summarize his own sourced argumentation under insult by McClenon and Str1977, or after an apology for your inuendo of today ? Or before or after a withdrawal of the unjust Rfc against Famekeeper? FKFamekeeper 18:45, 5 August 2005


 * section"Censorship/massage (Pope Pius XII)"( March -August 2005) Archive 3

Archive 4

 * denialism Arguments/removalsAll of the material that I considered either speculative or POv has been moved to this talk page and is available for any Wikipedian to review and re-edit. [RMcC]
 * I reverted, not because I oppose including your information (see my post at your talk page), but because the whole edit was infused with a anti-Pacelli POV (which might come from Cornwell) studded with factual inaccuracies (rewrote concordats), debunked claims (anti-semitic letter) or off-topic remarks (Martin Luther burned canons etc). [Str1977]
 * I really don't mind what you do as it is your own choice to intervene in this way . I do think you will be the subject of scrutiny, but I have played my part . It is not for me to fight : You are rv'ing source ., and it's up to you . Personally I believe this takes us right back to the beginning- you are a fantastic terrier for the cause of Pacelli , and it really isn't any of it to do with my POV . I sourced everything I ever did on articles , the rest were my attempts to cure you of this craziness .FK

I am still agreeable to mediation or arbitration. I am not trying to block or censor any view. I am only trying to remove unattributed POV to the talk page. If you can present it as POV, then it can be presented. You did not attribute it. I suggest that you move all of the questioned material to Hitler's Pope, which is a summary of what Cornwell wrote RMcC
 * New page/ Cornwell fork Your insertions were reverted because they were not presented as Cornwell's POV, but as fact. It is fact and NPOV that Cornwell says that Pacelli believed in centralized power and was working toward that objective. It is POV to simply say that. You did not present them as Cornwell's statements, but as fact.
 * New page As it were it cannot stand - not as fact - only as POV, Cornwell's POV and, there I agree with Robert would be best placed at the Hitler's Pope page - there Cornwell's book and his description of Pius is the basis of the article. Str1977 08:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * . I can only tell you what you are already absolutely aware of : this is pure Cornwell that now even you, have reverted . What am I supposed to say is really not the point . The point is on what basis is Cornwell not allowed entry ?


 * But ! Expand I unfortunately cannot accept your proposal. We cannot create one article for your "accusations" and one for my "counter-point" - this would go against all Wiki principles I know: balance, NPOV. Two wrongs (in the sense that they are POV) don't make it right. Accusations should be included in the main article in a depov'ed language and counter-criticism should be next to it. (The same goes for a "Hitler's Pope" page - it covers the book and its accusations pluse a critical treatment of it - to make it NPOV). Apart from the fact that there probably is no fitting name for such a accusation page (Hitler's Pope is about the book, Pope's Hitler is -sorry to say it- nonsense and even "Catholic Holocaust complicity" doesn't actually say what the title suggests - our debate has never been about the Shoa (as I prefer to call it)). And I don't want to have to think of a catchy name for a defense page. Anyway, the main problem is that it'd violate NPOV.... EffK is POVI agree with you that the concordat should be included in Pius XI too (and Dilectissima certainly belong there - but in proper context). After all it was his concordat (like the others), though Pacelli did some negotiating. I though about this for some time. However, let us first settle the dispute on the other pages. Str1977 12:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * EffK is POV pusherQuite frankly, Flamekeeper's edits are so POV-driven, so heavy-handed and on occasions so OTT as to be appalling. An article with so much conjecture, inaccuracy, POV and misdirected analysis could not possibly be let stand in an encyclop?dia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not re-read Cornwell within the past few months, but my recollection of what I did read is that much of what FK attributes to Cornwell is not what Cornwell wrote RmCC


 * EffK overstatesFK's turgid and detail-heavy writing tends to overstate Cornwell IMO. There was accomodation between the church and the Nazis in 1933 but this steadily degenerated. Wyss 22:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand /patsw There's been no report casting doubt on the authenticity of the original story of 'Operation Rabat' since it was first reported, so it doesn't need to be created here in the Wikipedia. patsw 03:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand/anon Why is it important to mention some Jews who defended the pope? None of these Jews was able to tell "exactly" what Pius did to save Jews....When a person is accused of murder, its not enough, that a witness says, that the suspect was alwasy a very kind person. The witness must confirm an alibi. And not every jew defends the pope. If you know the literature you'll find many jewish authors accusing the church. Just to mention a few: Daniel Goldhagen, Saul Friedländer, Günter Lewy, Moshe Herczl, Frank Baron, Sandor Szenes, Menachem Shelah... --87.122.91.110 08:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a place to discuss the editing of the article, not a discussion board for pro- and anti-Pius XII points of view. Please sign what you add to talk page with four tildes. patsw 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 08:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/Goldhagen Patsw is right that this is about editing the article, so I won't comment on your other points, except to say that, sorry, Goldhagen is really not to be taken seriously for what he says (only for what he sows).
 * Denialsim nPOV Argument Wyss ) Sadly, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing too. Intentions can be morally flawed, well-meaning actions based on them can be morally flawed, etc. Wyss 09:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  What I try to say in regard to Pius is: he acted as he did, chosing from different alternatives the one he considered to be the best. In order to save as many as possible, he chose the "low-key" road. One might disagree with his assessment, but that doesn't make his decisions immoral. I hope you understand my point. Str1977 09:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Critics suggest that his "low-key" road was morally unacceptable because he was aware that Jews were being marginalized (often brutally) from Germany society at the outset of Nazi rule, yet signed the concordat with them etc. So long as the article contains references to documented crits along those lines, it'll be accordingly NPoV IMO. Wyss 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument /discussion itself If not discuss it here, where then? The name of this page IS discussion. ...87.122.71.14 01:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why go to such lengths as you do - only to be able to retain your prejudice. Str1977 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Prove that Im wrong to show me that my oppinion is a prejudice. --87.122.72.159 17:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument/Good Shepherd A puff paragraph on him is POV just as much as a critical paragraph is. Robert McClenon 15:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/Beatification/Controversy The questions arising from the concordat have re-surfaced of late because of the moves toward canonisation for Pope Pius XII, and recent reference to the Enabling Act in the book Memory and Identity by Pope John Paul II, who cites it as an example of the dangers present even in a democracy. FK
 * The first part may be ok, but there is no reference to the concordat (at least not in this passage) of the concordat (as "it" and the placement here suggest). JP2 was speaking of the self-destruction of the Weimar Republic, most notably the Enabling Act. However, there is no clear connection to the concordat. I know, that's FK's thesis but it is at least not clear (and I think untrue) and hence the logical sequence makes leaps here. Str1977 19:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument QpQ ''This requires the assumption that there is a link between the EA and the concordat (otherwise it'd be 'Questions arising from the EA' and not "from the concordat") You argue for such a link relentlessly, but you have established it indisputably, neither has any historian (if any tried so in a published text - Lewy says there is no evidence). [Str1977]
 * Questions arise is nonfactual, vague, and expresses a point of view -- it is POV from nowhere in particular. If there is a question, then the question should be explicit and the article should include by whom, where, and when the question arose and be properly cited. patsw 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive 5

 * * Expand /Cornwell I believe this text does not belong in the introduction: [patsw]


 * You were the one that acknowledged the importance of the book. [Noitall]
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Denialism Argument/Cornwell The it is not a fact about Pope Pius XII but Cornwell's disputed POV [patsw]
 * I think "it"'s more concrete than that, [Wyss}
 * I think that a mention of the Cornwell criticism is relevant to the movement to advance him to sainthood. [RMcC]
 * I removed the Cornwell passage from the introduction [Str1977]
 * it has not been disputed: the book is what made this Pope, as opposed to all others, more notable. [Noitall]
 * I'm going forward with removing the reference from the introduction.


 * This Page 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. [patsw 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)]
 * Denialism Argument/Infallibility 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." [Str1977]
 * I have another attempt at an NPOV introduction which removes the reference to infallibility. patsw 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * but have retained the fact that his book intensified debate [Str1977]


 * This page 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)
 * seems to indicate other points of view on the subject and leaves details for later.{GordonWattsDotCom]
 * At most I would say that controversy exists, and go into it further down in the article. [

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆] 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * '''Denialism Argument/Patsw 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)
 * In my user page I make it clear that I seek to correct anti-Catholic POV in articles such as this one. [patsw]


 * Expand/Cornwell I happen to agree with Cornwell's assessment. [RMcC]
 * Expand 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)
 * Expand patsw himself acknowledged the importance of the book, stating he wants to "refocus on the Holocuast and indicate what event intensified the debate" [and [Noitall 12:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC]
 * Denialism Argument/Original research of Discussion pages''' . I did not think, and do not think, that the statement of opinions or points of view on article talk pages is original research -[JPGordon ?}
 * New page 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.[RMcC]
 * Expand 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)
 * Expand Personal attack 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)
 * In contrast to other editors I post only substantiated stuff in articles. Str1977 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I did understand the innuendo. Robert McClenon 23:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Expand/verify 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. patsw 22:59, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Expand [I]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)
 * Expand/Whitewash 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)


 * Expand after all, Cornwell wasn't the first one to have problems with Pius's actions during WWII. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand/POV pushing by deletion 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)
 * Expand If controversy plays a big factor, this should be noted, Str1977 08:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC
 * Expand . 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)
 *  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.  Str1977 17:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument, HPope . 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)


 * Expand -- 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.[Noitall]
 * Denialism Argument-vatican agency 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)


 * Denialism/NotabilityI 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)

Archive 6

 * Denialism Argument/Holocaust:Expand While I am all for not ignoring Pius's positive contributions to saving Jews, this section is entirely an apologetic, without any attempt to balance at all. ....Again, I am not saying that this article needs to be a screed against Pius, but, it needs to at least reflect a more balanced view, [[User:Goodoldpolonius2|Goodoldpolonius2 15:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand No, I state that the article is not balanced because it does not include any mention AT ALL of criticism of Pius's actions, of which there are volumes, not just a play, including work by Catholic scholars like John Pawlikowski, O.S.M. of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago and Seton Hall professor and diocesan priest John Morley, and Kevin Madigan of Harvard Divinity School and Catholic Theological Union, in addition to the writings by Carroll and Willis, and many, many authors. It is also biased because it just includes positive quotes when there are at least as many negative quotes, and because it states controversal views as fact, without giving sources or context. Additionally, as I think I have tried to show above, some of the facts in the article are not correct. Again, I am not trying to vilify Pius, but any outside reader would not even know there was any controversy here, and there certainly was. Even staunch supporters of Pius would hopefully say that asking whether he did enough to help the Jews and what he knew when about the Holocaust are legitimate topics for discussion. These are issues the article does not raise, just as it does not even acknowledge there are critics. Perhaps you feel it is not valid, and that is fine, but these issues need to be acknowledged, not ignored. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand It's not a question of who's right but on making sure that the relevant undisputed facts, disputed facts, analysis, opinion, and speculation get into the article in a readable form. {Patsw}23:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC
 * Denialism Argument/Biased However, I do think this article has swung well over to the heavily POV side in an attempt to defend Pius from his overzealous attackers, and I am willing to bet that any group of reasonable people reading it would find it the same way.....The result is a page that feels overstuffed with defenses of Pius, without expalaining what, exactly, the other side has to say. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The anti-Pius position is reflected in Further Reading with books by Susan Zuccotti and John Cornwell.... Sadly, this is exactly the sort of point of view, speculative, and biased writing that we'd reject here. patsw 02:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My minimum suggestion would be to remove (or balance with opposing quotes) [GoodoldP]


 * Expand Surely there are more NPOV authors that this clearly OTT POV one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are definitely a number of POV issues that we should address in this article -- please see my previous post for some of them. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument/Holocaust Pius faced the ultimate nightmare. Yes he was like most of his contemporaries rascist and anti-semitic; few weren't. But even in their rascism and anti-semitism they still baulked at Nazim actions. However he faced a horrifying fear we don't face. We know the outcome of the war. He didn't. He headed a religion that he believed had a divine duty to survive. He didn't believe however that it could stop Hitler..... Hindsight is great to have, which is why I am highly sceptical of those people who make allegations with the benefit of it....For their theories can never be disproven. . FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand/new page/ to Goodoldpolonius ... I am concerned at the skewed representation about the earlier era 1925-1933 ( which in my mind expands today to at least Papen's Nuremburg Trial reference to a 1936 "high authority" backing further synthesis with Nazism . Further I would say that it is your duty to continue your attempts at balancing any such articles which skew, or lack, or de-couple what history we do know . It sounds as though you suspect Hitler's Pope to be a conspiracy theory, so I attest that the phrase Avro Manhattan used by 1949 was Nazi Pope . I consider the Papen reference to 1936 at Reichskonkordat talk to in fact merit our fuller consideration of exactly this concept as anything but a conspiracy theory . I am open minded as to how, where and who could fulfill the necessary facts. I mean that angry attempts to emasculate the question left by history because a small section here or there seems more relevant to a separate article , and thus off-topic may necessitate a serious concerted move to open a catch all article . McClenon tried to do this and was jumped on for his trouble(not by me)- as really I just thought it too abstrusely named .....Just as vatican apologia concentrates on the wartime era and supposed goodnes you have qualified , and evades earlier Pacelli questions/ accusations thus, so I believe that there is too much focus on Hitler as a sole aberrant monster of anti-semitism ....I have been waiting a long time to see someone rationally question the state of this history here (all the articles) and this your contribution appears to un-veil a new possible rationality . I beg you to involve yourself as much as you will , in the hope that this rationality will not shy from the harder questions and necessities . But apart from that which you have positioned here, I am not hopeful and am used to a wilderness and constant attack (maybe even from you?) .EffK 07:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand I repeat the last post I made, which is that it is this vatican direction towards the saving of the Institution which in great part explains the Pius XII embodiment , the which should be fully treated , unlike the pauce reference at the articles opening.
 * ), I just want to state what my "havoc" comment meant. Quite apart from the gravity, the factual accuracy and the NPOV-ness of your posts, the havoc is that your edits and talk page posts are difficult to understand. Hence, dicussions with you are far from easy and your edits disrupt the articles they are inserted in. I'm sorry about that and try (as on Pius XI) to include your information in a non-disruptive way (meaning proper wording, interpuctuation, grammar etc.), if the edit is accurate and NPOV. [Str1977] 14:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument/Controversial  I know that Pope Pius XII is considered controversial, but does it need to be mentioned six times in the article?...On the other hand, the articles on Hitler and Stalin present their subjects as non-controversial [patsw]
 * Huh? Hitler's not controversial; he's almost universally reviled. Stalin still has a few apologists and even a few followers, but he's not particularly controversial. Do you somehow read "controversial" as pejorative? --Jpgordon 03:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "controversal" is not an attack, it is a statement that controversy exists. Can you please look again at the six uses of controversal in the article that I listed above (one use was used to describe a fictional drama and two were used to signify "the debate over the actions of Pius XII in the Holocaust") and suggest what alternative language would you use? The best way to resolve this is with concrete suggestions, rather than general issues. Let me know what you think is best. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * so far I don't see that it is overused that much. [Str1977]


 * Denialism Argument/RC Cabal So, considering the concert of revert and support...what is this but a Catholic cabal subverting a free encyclopedia ? EffK 19:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OOH! Do I see the word " Bias " ? EffK 09:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bias or not! The claim was found out to be bogus.' Str1977 18:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive 7

 * Expand Biographies should be about the person and Wikipedia should pride itself on being the "go to" source for just this kind of info. [Unsigned by Izehar? ]
 * Denialism Argument/Smear What on earth happened to this article?! It was great a month and a half ago and now it is one big smear job by late 20th century arm chair historians and conspiracy theorists who place credence in the conjecture and bias of disgruntled ex-priests and Dan Brown style opportunists. [User:70.18.175.213 18:03|70.18.175.213 18:03], 12 December 2005
 * While I completely agree with the above comment that the article has gone downhill....The harshness of your criticism distracts from the fact that it is largely accurate but partly inaccurate. Robert McClenon 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The use of only positive quotes from Jewish sources (When there have been negative ones as well), the failure to mention anything about the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission, the Israel Zolli story, etc. all led to an article that left out vital info and was heavily slanted. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Expand The problem is a hatchet job article on Pius XII. We're interested in the steak not the sizzle here. Substance for the article's sake, not what's happening back stage (discussion page). ...And frankly, as a matter of honesty, I am generous enough to say "let every piece of smear against Pius XII come into the article" but don't remove all the hard work that was there 138.89.28.150 03:39, 13 December 2005
 * Expand . There is a section on "Criticism of Pope Pius XII" which is absolutely fine and I would encourage anyone wanting to add to that section their most robust arguments against the man to do so there. Make the criticism section 10x's as long as the rest of the article if you so choose. With cut and paste, you can have all the diatribe back in there within 20 minutes. Counter every scrap of evidence that would tend to make Pius look good and add every explanation as to why those quotes from mid-20th century Jews are out of context if you like, but please don't censor and destroy what was one of Wikipedia's better articles. What happened to the article was so dishonest and painted such a lopsided picture that it cried for fixing. Likewsie, the opportunity presented now to add to the criticism section in untrammeled fashion is very fair will better serve the readers of the article. Let's agree on fairness. User:70.21.162.53 15:28, 13 December 2005
 * Expand Substantial new content was added, including a lot of info favorable to Pope Pius XII, descriptions of work done by a research council appointed by the Vatican, etc, huge numbers of sourced comments, etc. If you want to re-insert something like the quotes section, do it by hand, rather than by eliminating two months of changes! --Goodoldpolonius2 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand . But in addition to the diatribe and smear job, just don't remove the bona fide evidence that exonerates the man. That is all this anon asks. User:70.21.162.53 15:42, 13 December 2005...... Put as much of it back in as you like. That's the way you should have done it back in October and that is why you are humbly being asked to do it that way now. Best regards and no hard feelings. User:70.21.162.53 16:03, 13 December 2005


 * Expand It is very easy to import whatever explanations/counter arguments that anyone wants to to make into the current article which is balanced and thoughtful. The expunging of the quotes and much other good info was very irresponsible as it in fact did destroy a lot of hard work, whereas this revert affects a few punctuation matters [User:70.21.162.53 16:39], 13 December 2005
 * Denialism Argument/Wikipedia Norms It is not your unilateral judgement that rules here it is sources and date....Goodoldpolonius2 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand I must agree that the quotes are very interesting, however, to remain unbiased (which I am not, as think Pius' actions in the face of Nazism were unquestionably commendable) we should probably add some negative quotes as well. JG of Borg 17:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand Add negative quotes if you like. That's been my point all along. Put in whatever you want. Put in a quote that he was a bank robber if you can find one. Fair minds will discern and I think that's your fear, frankly ...User:70.21.152.4 17:50, 13 December 2005
 * Denialism Argument/QpQ Is is not holy enough for us to mention the kick-back scheme with Adolf ? It is visible that the absolute cut-off point for the scandalous reichskonkordat kick back / quid pro quo is here, despite source, put at 9 April. It is conveniently massaged in. This is a brilliant whitewash of the Pacelli influence upon the German hierarchy at the time of the scheme. EffK 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/template suggestion Towards resolving some workable Wikipedia template for this and other Articles, see Vatican Bank -discussion,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vatican_Bank#Inherently_POV
 * Denialism Argument/Collaboration sourced It seems apparent that Pacelli was involved with/sympathetic to Bishop Alois Hudal, and that there is a relationship there that is sourceable even apart from the extraordinary reference by von Papen at his trial to a high authority in the Vatican seeking yet another synthesis with the healthy doctrines of National Socialism in 1936.

Since a high authority is not the high authority, it is reasonable to now source the identity of this high authority as in yet another synthesis. I have sourced the Pius XII Widerstand Vatican Exchanges at length, and what is most noticeable is that they reveal a willingness by Pacelli to yet another retention of such doctrines in even 1943.In short, knock off Hitler himself, but keep the doctrines powering Germany. Keep the war in the East, keep the expansionism and keep the healthy doctrines. It is shocking that the supposedly whiter than white Widerstand figures equally saw this as out-come, however unsuccessfully, through even 1943. That Pius XII went along with it is morally outrageous, given the ICJHC questions, and the reality of Pacelli's knowledge of the mass-murders. Fortunately, as I have before remarked, Churchill et al did not have any such intentions, and distrusted Pacelli for the very reason that this inglorious idea would sap the fighting will entirely. EffK 21:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive 8

 * Expand I repeat that my proposal towards an a.r.t. placed at talk Vatican Bank is the only solution, for what is, frankly a ridiculous situation.{EffK]
 * Expand But I believe I am able to edit with good faith and integrity, and I'm willing to at least have a go at dialogue to help write a better article....As a way of re-opening dialogue I suggest: we work through the disputed sections (on the Reichskonkordat, the Catholic church and Nazi germany) point by point here on the talk page. {Bengalski]

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) The only source that I said should be excluded was Avro Manhattan, who has an extreme anti-Catholic agenda. Robert McClenon 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Thank you. I understand what Bengalski has written, and largely agree with him. I do not consider it to be an explanation of what EffK had written, which was what I wanted clarified. Robert McClenon 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand
 * Expand I will certainly co-operate in anything that is based on inclusivity, even, as a.r.t says to the point of including error, of pure belief, wishful thinking (ie religious evaluation) and cultural/religious values. I will start this by considering how to actually arrange the contradictory materials, and, as you say Bengalski, by presenting source refs, possibly by diffs rather than repetition. However I have to note that the particular 'catholic' editors need to accept that this balancing is unavoidable/desirable/achievable. I am entirely happy to have an apparently very clear minded Bengalski act within his evident rational capacity, as mentor-in-effect to me. {EffK]
 * Expand My comment was then and remains valid: A biographical work does not merit its own article. It will of necessity be a content fork for the subject article. [Patsw]
 * Denialism Argument/Patsw Your cut and paste from that article into this article is another example of POV-warring and your manifest inability to accept or even recognize that the 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 [patsw]:The Wikipedia is not the place to conduct the Pius XII debate. And as long as you are permitted to edit here, and your debating points and your original research remain in Pope Pius XII-related articles, they will be useless as encyclopedic articles. Before your arrival the article contained a readable, concise summary of the Pope Pius XII debate taking place among historians and perhaps one day it will again. patsw 16:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/Str1977 The rule that EffK proposed (accepting all sources) is a rule feasible or rather imperative for historical research. When writing on a certain topic, a historian is not allowed to discard any source or any literature (except those secondary works clearly way out). However, that doesn't mean that he will take all he reads as revelation but he will have to deal with it (Quellenkritik).... However, Wikipedia is not the place for historical research or historical debate ....EffK has absolutely no evidence (at least he has provided none) for the conncetion he alleges [Str1977]
 * I note you claim to be a historian. That is quite a claim. Can you show published work or references. You were remarkably willing to negate the megamemex quotes of lewy, and retracted. you are both in error and personally aggressive about it. i have produced all the source and proff. your several actions have been enirely negative, and this seems to be purely a religious argument. [EffK]


 * New Page Whether the actual bargaining should be included is another matter, as Pacelli did not negotiate himself and all the conditions would need to be included (and not just what someone thinks is "key"). This however would exceed the limits of this article. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/JohnKenney There's also the fact that EffK is a POV pusher, who likes to insert true things in completely out of context ways in order to make the Catholic Church look bad. [JK]
 * Unless Bengalski or someone can persuade me, I see no prospect of anything other than continuing acrimony. I feel entirely vindicated and therefore see no other remark than to put this down to just another attempt by me to act for consensus....Any reasonable person would certainly see enough sourced connection here in WP, eevn if only where I have put it, now to warrant inclusion at the least where relevant, such as to the major beneficaries.  [FK]


 * Expand a.r.t. template/Str1977 The Off-topic template is reasonable and will be discussed somewhere else. ...Of course there was a give and take in the concordat negotiations just as in any negotiations, as any side has different objectives. How forcefully Hitler explicetely demanded the disolution (let alone self-disolution) of the Centre I don't know. Nonetheless, it was clear that the Party had no future. Believe me, Pacelli would have preferred to keep it alive but, as I said, any negotiating is give and take and the parties anyway were faced only with the alternatives of being dissolved or dissolving themselves. [Str1977]
 * You are known to agree and to then refute further on. you accused my good faith, even though I authored the reasonable solution.EffK 14:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Expand/ EffK points sourced I note /source the Shirer/john Toland and various other sources. A private meeting between Kaas and Hitler on 2 April, Kaas' immediate exit from Berlin 24 after the end-cvote, his handing that against promise, his words showing he knew the vote to be bad for their soul, his earlier sole personal visit to Papen(Hitler) to open negotiation for something c 6 march, following elections the 5 day, his close friendship with Pacelli, another source accusing papal interference in May 1932 exactly through Kaas, others saying Kaas devised the Hitler formulae re Hitler's Holy See in his 23 pro christian Enabling Act conciliation, I link, as does the source to the Fulda Conference 28 march, to source showing abrupt policy reversals c 28 March in the freer region of the Saar made as soon as the following year and published in London. I remark what I see sourced and which confirms that a great deal here is avoided. I also fight against this apologist continuously, as my history shows. he has ben against all the \above over an extended period opf time and I adher to not accusing bad faith prior to demonstrable proof. this hads been going on for ayear and all of these things I enumerat have been repeatedly traduced against WP verifiabilty for nearly a year. i am up for Arbcom as a vandal POV pet conspiract theory pusher 8, whilst I have been myself begging help, mediation, arbitration and, lately that two obstructive user's join my trial and that Wikipedia awaken to serious harm being forced through by bad faith religionists who indulge in what is in effect GermanSPD/clerical denialism. If you can help settle this one way or another, any source is welcome .EffK 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive 9
"John Toland writes in 'title, edition, page' that then-Cardinal Pacelli agreed to the dissolution of the Centre Party in exchange for Hitler's acceptance of the Reichskoncordat..." with other details about the arrangement, and maybe another supporting citation to William Shrier. Another editor opposes this addition. Would you like to post here this short paragraph you propose to add so I can see exactly what it is? Tom Harrison Talk 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argumnt/EffK edit to PPXIIThis is what I put in a year ago:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pius_XII/Archive9]Enough to show you that I tried. I could do better these days, were it possible. PS I see these guys are gunning for the sourced Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. They have it down for deletion, Such bad faith-it is sourced. How bout voting against source then? Against History itself!EffK 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/admin HarrisonI take that to mean 'yes.' So would you like to add to the article something like:
 * I am one of the editors who has objected to some of EffK's edits. I certainly would not object to a statement such as you proposed, and I do not think that Str1977 would either. Robert McClenon 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Tom, I wouldn't object to including such a statement, if properly worded (NPOV), but the problem is that that is merely one point in the complex issue of concordat negotiations. We would have to include the whole concordat with all its regulations and that would make the article explode. Currently, Reichskonkordat links to a separate article, and IMHO that's a feasible solution. Str1977 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Str1977 raises a valid point. Such a statement, if properly worded, would be appropriate in the Reichskonkordat article and in the Centre Party articles rather than in Pope Pius XII. What I meant was that Tom's proposed wording is the sort of statement that is NPOV and verifiable. Robert McClenon 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell you in less length that which you need to understand. I have a concatenation of sources, so anyway that wouldnt suffice either for WP or me or anyone. This complexity will only be possible between me and Str1977, as only we 2 follow each other. We unfortunately have diametrically obverse positio,n. If truly tried, or watched, I can prove mine, and I say he has caved on those I speak of. However that doesnt allow me any success-which is why the Artciles are as they are. I'm afraid to say that I have no faith that I shall be allowed to place anything anywhere anymore. I am blocked,in effect by bad faith from writing what should be written here as at Adolf Hitler.


 * Denialism /Forks/EffK plaint to admin I'll do it but I won't waste my time given the abuse and the Str1977 edits here above explained. You explain how I was forced out of here under the history, into Hitler's Pope and from there to the Great Scandal ? You make a statement as a mind-like Bengaslski did, as I am denied trust and good will and even my sanity and know what I place will be removed or massaged or twisted.
 * Enough to show you that I tried ?. [Edits shown to Admin by EffK]


 * Expand/Source/ link]] [EffK] shows multiplre source/linkage] NB artificially Archived'''

Archive 10

 * Denialism/venerable Hi-Jack of : no one else answers your point, I am sorry you have been so left dangling. My little understanding is that this is a very precise and necessary word, Venerable. I beleive it signals that the subject is on the first step in the road to Saint-hood. He ...[EffK]
 * ''Thank you. I have since read that John Paul II was the pope who decreed Pius XII to be venerable...[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument/ EffK sources :Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich: Volume One (SCM Press, 1977). Jeremy Noakes & Geoffrey Pridham, Documents On Nazism, 1919-1945 (Jonathan Cape, 1974 . 1933 March 18 Papen visits Cardinal Bertram, inquiring whether the Church would not revise its stand on Nazism. The Cardinal tells him, ""The act of revising has to be undertaken by the leader of the National Socialists himself." from Guenter Lewy . Joseph McCabe. Pope John Paul II's 10 November 1994 apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente,Pope John Paul II,16 march 1998 A REFLECTION ON THE SHOAH . Clemens August Graf von Galen Review by John s Conway, Columbia University. by Freidrich Loeffler ed. P. Loeffler, _Bischof Clemens August Graf von Galen. Johann Neumann's "1945: The German churches before and afterwards"
 * Expand/ to AdminMy attitude has commonality with Patsw, McClenon and Str1977, Goodoldpolonius2, Bengalski, the late Wyss and others: the subject of Eugenio Pacelli has to, because of WP principles about forking, merge with the Hitler's Pope/ The Great Scandal subjects. They were created because the apologists removed all the shown references I already included. Did you see these ? [EffK]
 * Denialism:Source Within the source I have quoted, there is one thing that is extremely relevant, which is the reference by Bertram to the "biased announcements" that led to the requested Papen exchange with him of 19 march, as you know some 4 days before Ludwig Kaas handed the Enabling Act vote. Bengalski, then, had asked me to source the clearest references to the quid pro quo and I am therefore attempting to satisfy this good request. [EffK]


 * Denialism/Admin/No contrary Source If I or the apologists could find contrary source for the relevant missing period between 32/3 and 37, that would be required. I do not find it, and I have for a long time suggested that it be produced in order to show contradictory evidence as being POV. [EffK]
 * Expand So you would like to merge this page, Hitler's Pope, and The Great Scandal. It is perfectly acceptable to propose this and seek consensus for such a change. I do not suggest that you make any reversions or changes like you describe until consensus support exists. No big changes should be made unless most editors want them to be made. I invite anyone with an opinion on the changes that EffK recommends to speak up. Tom Harrison Talk 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is such over-lap between the secretary of State Pacelli under the Pius XI papacy, and the subsequent Pacelli papacy -as to cause us to pause. The anti-communism was cardinal to the history, and therefore Pacelli cannot be isolated from Pius XI's resultant policies. [EffK]
 * Denialism/McClenon Innocence /Admin I agreed with you that the criticisms of Pope Pius XII should be presented in more detail, and that there were moral errors by various Church leaders and groups, and that scholarly analyses of those errors should be presented....You again have someone who is willing to try to work with you to provide the balance that you think is lacking.[RMcC]
 * Nein, no: I have no thinking - I referred to source always. This is why we were unable to find accord-there has been no accord, and stil you demnonstrate the fact with thinking and no plausibility. Sorry.There is no thinking of FK. [EffK]
 * Please use these article talk pages to discuss articles. Robert McClenon 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Denialism/Expand/McC to Admin Here is what I would suggest. First, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII are papal biographices, and should summarize the lives of those two men with particular attention to their papacies. I see no reason why anything needs to be changed in Pope Pius XI. I think that its emphasis is right. In particular, I see no reason to include any criticisms of him, because I have not seen any plausible charges that he was complicit in the Nazi accession.Pope Pius XII was pope during World War Two, and much of the subsequent writing about his papacy has been concerned with praising and criticizing his conduct with respect to the Holocaust. His biography should summarize those arguments in proportion to the extent that historians have been favorable or unfavorable to him. It is reasonable for one-half of the article to summarize those views in balance. That is my opinion, and it is worth what you, Tom Harrison, paid for it. [RMcC]
 * . For God'd sakes! Your view ignores the source of Fulda, the today's Bertram, Galen JPII. Ignores the entirety of the world as affected. Ignores the supposedly-purely-diplomatic statements of Pius XI on 10 April 1933 crowning the publication of the event. Kaas I do not say quid pro quo here, but events. All known events. Sufficient source is present to require your answer to verifiability. "Doubt" that accuses verifiablity means is illogical bad faith. Prove lies or withhold yourself, from plausible. [[response EffK]


 * Expand/McClenon I think that The Great Scandal is a POV fork, and should be merged partly into Pope Pius XII and partly into Centre Party....However, if there is a name for a school of historical interpretation (an "ism") for views that the Catholic and Lutheran Churches were complicit in the rise of the Nazi Party, then that "ism" deserves its own article. [RMcC] Robert McClenon 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I second McClenon. I agree whole-heartedly with this bit of clear analysis. Yes- it is called Nazism/ NSDAP study alone. Anything further is but a study of a facet of Nazism. Nazism in relation to other Concepts, a name that is impossible to link to from a search box {EffK]

Archive 11

 * Expand Stop denying source. Allow full representation of the source. EffK
 * Expand 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. {Str1977]
 * Expand 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. User:70.21.184.251 22:22, 8 January 2006
 * Expand from Pius XII and the Holocaust - The paragraphs in the text that I altered were clearly written from a pro-Pius point of view, and I added a little of the other side. User:196.40.43.218
 * Expand/ or. New page 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. EffK
 * Expand . 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? EffK
 * Expand 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)
 * ExpandI 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. EffK
 * Not New page/NotExpand/Harrison 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. . Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Expand/merge/ New page (from outside Article)

 * Expand 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)
 * Expand 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)
 * New page 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.
 * Expand Str1977 wrote: WP is about summing up the "state of the art", giving the consensus and reporting on controversies....

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

 * Expand PPXII 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)
 * Expand 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)
 * Expand all? 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)
 * Expand all 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)
 * Expand 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
 * Expand 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:

 * Expand PPXII 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)
 * Expand PPXII 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)
 * Expand PPXII 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)

Archive 12

 * New Page Personally, I would cut its length in half by farming out certain themes and subjects to their own articles.--shtove 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand It's important to present both sides and I've always encouraged everyone to do that [Str1977? RMcC ?]
 * Expand There will be no proper resolution of any of the interlinked history joining with the political involvements of Eugenio Pacelli here or elsewhere in Wikipedia, so long as balanced sourced history is down-sized by such editorial decision making by Users constrained to the opposite. ..I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : EffK
 * Expand ? I have never taken issue with adding her words to the quotes. [RMcC]
 * Expand For the benefit of those who have arrived late, I have not tried to exclude statements of opinion that have been unfavorable to Pope Pius XII. I have tried to prevent their presentation as statements of fact. [RMcC]
 * Expand [To RmcC]I was driven conclusively off this article towards Hitler's Pope which I wrote in sufficient NPOV to have stood there where it survived a delete called for by was it not yourself? EffK

Archive 13

 * Expand. I intend to add some more issues which put Pacelli in a not very positive light, because I think a wikipedia article should not be a hagiography. But I will do so with every attempt to manitain NPOV, and using proper sourcing. I will also demand proper citations for the pro-Pacelli bulk of the article.Bengalski 15:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand I would like us to try and work together on this without calling for outside intervention, but please do not vandalise again.Bengalski 18:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand I agree, Bengalski, with the effort in providing more referenes, though I am not quite certain that we need a reference for everything you tagged "fact" - especially since some stuff has been there a while. But that's a balancing act. [Str1977]
 * Expand We have to be fair here. User:70.21.128.251
 * Expand Well I tried. It seems pretty clear to me that any attempt to present any information that is unfavourable to PXII will not be tolerated by some editors of this page..... I provide sources to say Pius is criticised for moral cowardice in granting a personal audience to this mass-murderer but you have decided this isn't in any way significant. [Bengalski]
 * Expand What credible person directly asserts that Pius arranged for false papers to help axis persons etc? Please name this person. Until then let's keep the article in the good shape it was without slander and acrimony. Thanks! User;70.21.160.66
 * Expand I think that about one-third (guess) of the fact tags should be removed, but not without discussion. Can we please discuss any changes to the article rather than just reverting? Undoing Bengalski's work is not appropriate....Regardless of whether Mowrer did refer to a quid pro quo, the allegation is sufficiently well known and quoted by reputable sources that it should be included. The question is to whom to attribute it. I am satisfied with attributing it to Gregory Paul, or someone can provide another source. [RMcC]
 * Expand If there are still areas where cites are direly needed, plase kindly re-insert. That's the best way. Cheers! User:70.21.160.66
 * Expand Please, all of you (and all of me), keep tempers down and try to work towards balance. Cheers, Str1977 10:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand Some things I think need to be done to move towards NPOV:[B itmises] [Bengalski]
 * Expand Bengalski: I didn't say there was no room for improvement, [TomHarrison]
 * Expand However I still think this is excessively hagiographic, and that Sr. Marchione is a questionable source.Bengalski 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * New page I suggest below that the information on his youth be moved into its own article. [RMcC]
 * Expand I actually agree with Tom Harrison, as I keep saying, that there should be a section on his childhood on this page - I don't think it necessarily needs a separate article. Just that it needs to be in a much more NPOV style.Bengalski 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand I agree that the quid pro quo allegation, regardless of source, is a necessary part of the article. So are the allegations of collusion with the Croatian regime (which even disgusted the Nazis because of the randomness and inefficiency of its genocide) and enabling war criminals to escape. Robert McClenon 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 'ExpandIn an article such as this one, where there are differing POVs, achieving NPOV is both difficult and essential, and involves the mutual assumption of good faith, as well as civility and respect. [RMcC]
 * Expand Robert, I agree on most but not on the quid pro quo allegation being a "necessary part of the article" - you know better than most here, that it is not based on sources. It is based on EffK's creative reading. It is not a view entertained by any historian (to my knowledge). Hate articles of course might drop such things, but they don't care about sourcing, do they? Str1977 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive 14

 * Expand I see that Str1977 has deleted the allegation of the quid pro quo as unsourced. I disagree. It should instead be left in, tagged as to needing a source. {RMcC]Robert McClenon 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)(I am willing to leave the quid pro quo out for the time being provided that we agree that we need to determine whether there are any reputable sources. I don't know if Bengalski will agree with that. Robert McClenon 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

Str1977 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand To the text I'd say. Remove some maintain and insert "Historians maintain" as there's no some about William L Shirer. I substantiate everything I ever say. The removal is clerical revisionist denialism in reality and is whetever WP wishes to uphold. I suggest Bengalski, that you are not going to put up with this for long. I did for 9 months, to be faced with 15 december Str1977's AHitler action. EffK
 * Exapand Well, there is a QpQ that is accepted by historians, namely that the dissolution of the Centre Party was on the bargaining table (as an objective of the German government) and that without it there would have been no concordat (the objective of the Holy See). I never disputed that, John K has given reference for that, and even the concordat's text points to that. I have no objection to including a passage on this QpQ. Str1977 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand You may have to indeed bring it back where we can work from it, I suggest. If there are any more questions please ask, and I may feel the over-powering need of good faith to provide yet further detailed exegesis of those or other texts. I caution everyone here that this is the most serious "Issue", and that I take reckless disregard of falsity in the historical particular as now inextricably being bound to my EffK pseudonymous person. We shall as you wish further study this , Bengalski, and you are now following the right track. I will help in every way that you ask with a complete assumption of your rational good faith. EffK
 * Expand A good faith gesture would be to find a reputable source for such a comment and then put it in. [Unsigned]
 * Expand A good faith gesture would be to find a reputable source for such a comment and then put it in. [Bengalski]
 * Expand Removing sourced material from Wikipedia is sometimes considered vandalism. Since it ws discussed on the talk page in this case, I will agree that it was not vandalism, but only a reckless edit. Please don't do that again. If this continues, I will have to ask an admin to semi-protect the article. Robert McClenon 12:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand The key point is "(eg. sources ...)." Are there sources to support the claim that "It is widely accepted..."? Are there any other historians at all who make inferences about what happened in the meeting? And what is the basis for their inferences? What is the basis for Mowrer's and Paul's inferences, for that matter? Tom Harrison Talk 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand And there were sources for the concordat negotiations - I can't remember right now of which kind and by whom, I have returned the relevant book (L. Volk), I guess these were reports by the German diplomats and also by Vatican people, [possibly the Kaas diary]. I will have another look into Volk.
 * Expand I will inform you on the nature of these sources once I get my hands on Volk again. .The Vatican isn't forthcoming with their files because it has regulations for the protection of living people. It wasn't that long ago and I don't think the Vatican is any more seclusive than any other government. Str1977 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand For this there are two primary sources, Manhattan and Mowrer, several secondary and many tertiary. It is a spurious argument to call Manhattan hate literature, Chick publishing him is off-topic. We can see no source provided to negate the Shirer straightforward information nor its echo in John Toland and Klemperer and Atkin and Tallet(who may only , or not accept or mention the 2 QpQ). There needs to be contrary source to allow that it is some, as there are no others presented over the year here so exonerating. There are Pacelli comments prior and post. However I am not going to say that this job is anywhere near done unless the rolling QpQ includes what Toland and Shirer, I believe, say concerning the QpQ including the Vatican prevailing upon the whole hierarchy in Germany, with the votle face as I have relayed. EffK
 * Symptom "Get unreal. Robert McClenon 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)"

Present (Archive 15)
I agree, Robert. No objections from me. (The articles "only" banned clerics from politics (§ 32), and protected Catholic organisations in the fields of religion and charity (§ 31) (and in fact restricted them to it). Str1977 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * * Expand I gave furhter source, and the conclusions of Mr. Paul are not required, nor of Cornwell, nor Kershaw, nor Toland.Manhattan is a Primary Source, as well as one of 50 editions, thus cannot be ignored on two counts. However he does not particularly add anything. The other sources I have given. This is a offensive to treat me like this with such repetitive bad faith. EffK
 * Expand Please keep in mind that this is called "Editing Talk" and this is not a discussion board. "X proves Y" only merits inclusion in the article if it can be verified and not merely argued. In the realm of POV: "A wrote X proves Y" in order to be presented neutrally will include "B denies X" and/or "C wrote X does not prove Y". But in all cases there needs to be a citation of the dispute and no original research. patsw 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand I think that there is little disagreement that there was a quid pro quo that the dissolution of the Centre Party was a condition for the Reichskonkordat. Does anyone disagree? (Wasn't there an article in the konkordat that implied that dissolution by regulating Church involvement in politics?) Robert McClenon 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand
 * Expand [McC to Bengalski/?] Then the question is whether Bengalski is arguing in favor of an inclusion of QpQ2, and, if so, in what form, and how much recognition should be given to the fact that it is at best a minority view? Robert McClenon 19:08, 31 January 2006
 * [answer in part]The answer is yes. Here again is the suggestion I made above: ..../...But so far, I repeat myself again, I haven't actually had an argument as for why the sourcing we've got in so far is non-notable. And, once again, I ask that this claim be treated the same as all the others (and no, once again, we're not just talking about stamp collections but about the many significant unsourced claims on the page): we'll mark it as having a disputed source, and allow three weeks for supporters of the claim to show the source is serious, or provide more (I'll digest Shirer, and try to get hold of what Lewy and Scholder have to say), or on the other hand for its critics to show why the sourcing is unacceptable. And if we can't get any resolution by then, which I very much hope won't be the case, I guess we can ask for mediation.Bengalski 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Expand [RMcC/Bengalski] Since the QpQ2 claim is still in the article, I have removed the NPOV tag. I have left the other tags in the article. I see no need for the NPOV tag as long as all points of view, such as QpQ2, are mentioned with an opportunity for sources. Robert McClenon 12:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am replacing it. You asked me above what I thought needed to be done to move this article towards NPOV, and I gave you eight points. We haven't even finished with one of them yet.Bengalski13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that before we proceed we have a process involving both his advocates and his critics on the name and structure of the evaluation article. patsw 03:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * New page What does Bengalski propose doing about the childhood stuff? I proposed summarizing it in one paragraph and moving the longer text into a sub-article, but I thought that there was disagreement. Robert McClenon 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand I think try and re-write it in a style that isn't pure hagiography 'he was wonderful at this', 'he was the best at that' etc. [Bengalski]
 * Expand No. We do not need a POV dispute tag because critical material is deleted out of hand. We need to ensure that critical material is not deleted unless it is found to be unverifiable. Robert McClenon 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ExpandThere are a lot of uncited statements in the article - which I think is particularly unacceptable for an article that has been this controversial. I think we kind of agreed that we would give a few weeks for people to find citations for them, otherwise just remove anything still unsourced. You could help with this if you like.Bengalski 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand. As for myself, I am a recent unbiased "watcher" on the article, as I noticed the article attracts controversy. I know virtually nothing about Pius XII. As a neutral observer, I will readd whatever a biased editor like yourself deletes, allowing the article to mature with citations, just as every other wiki article. pat8722 14:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand I put some sources for a few things, I'm not sure how valid they all are [T.Anthony]
 * Expand The objective is to allow scholarly opinions to be presented as scholarly POV while deleting questionable statements of fact or opinions that have no scholarly basis (in which case they are original research).Thank you for your interest in this article. Robert McClenon 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * New page Several suggestions have been made (to me, by email) about progress on this article. One was to revert the article to its state before EffK began editing. I disagree. Another was to revert the article to its state in August 2005 when the current round of edit wars began. I disagree. Another suggestion was to scrap the article and start over. I disagree. I do however agree with a suggestion that the criticisms and defense of Pope Pius XII should be summarized in one paragraph in this article, but moved into a sub-article. Robert McClenon 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand People here have argued that no serious historian would argue the 'strong QPQ', only conspiracy nuts. I think Scholder rates as a serious source for the strong QPQ claim in anyone's book. Argue against the QPQ claim by all means, and cite contrary interpretations, but it is time to stop dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory'.Bengalski 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand Okay, not having received any further reply to this I have rewritten the reichskonkordat section to reflect the information I got from Scholder and other sources. Please no one remove anything without discussing - everything I have put in is properly sourced.Bengalski 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand/contract Right now I can only say that your edit removed other valid info, and gives quite too much room to Scholder (and him alone) - the article should state the general lines, with all sides in case of controversy, with dipping into too much detail. Also, before the controversy the facts should be stated first. Str1977 (smile back) 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand I'll try and do some more work editing the page soon - but if there are claims that I'm not sure about and I can't find any reputable source googling what do I do? [Bengalski]
 * Expand . As a neutral observer, I will readd whatever a biased editor like yourself deletes, allowing the article to mature with citations, just as every other wiki article." pat8722 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * New page I will again suggest that criticisms and defenses of Pope Pius XII should perhaps be split into a sub-article with a one-paragraph summary. This is not a POV fork or content fork, but simply a matter of providing a biography that focuses on his career as a Cardinal and as a Pope, and is primarily factual. Some people really just want to know the facts of his life, rather than the arguments. Robert McClenon 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * New page Sorry, for my inaction on this. I suggested that the main article contain a typical biographical set of facts not subject to dispute and an article with a title like Evaluation of Pope Pius XII be created which organizes the items of his biography that are disuputed and the historical criticism. Robert, subpages or subarticles are no longer permitted in the main namespace.

118 x Expand at Pope Pius XII
Expression to properly expand the Pius XII page to include the relevant inclusivity is c 118

12 x Expressions for a New page to be added beyond Pope Pius XXII main-page
Expression to properly expand the Pius XII subject on a separate page is c 12

Archive 1

 * Denialism Argument/Klemperer In the second half you quote Klemperer and what he says is basically correct and/or valid interpretation.


 * However you then draw unwarranted conclusions from it and state them as fact. The effect is slander, even if you don't mean to since you honestly hold this to be correct.


 * Let me explain, what Klemperer means:


 * Kaas negotiated with Hitler and Papen on the Centre's support for the Enabling Act and asked the government to give guarantees or assurances ("he was the main advocate for supporting the Hitler administration's Enabling Act in return for certain guarantees") and the government promised to accept these (though a written confirmation was delayed - on purpose) and Hitler also addressed the issues in his speech (I will include that fact, if you insist). In that way Klemperer is right in referring to the "governmental declaration of 23 March 1933, in the formulation of which prelate Kaas had a hand". It is however untrue to say that Kaas wrote Hitler's speech and it is much less true that he should bear the blame for Hitler breaking these promises. He already bears enough blame.


 * After this you again to your usual general statements, implying things that are mostly untrue and that have no bearing on this entry....And yes, it is not slander to say they should be dug up, it is a dispicable display of gross impiety. [Str1977]

This entry is about Kaas, the Centre entry about the Centre. So the Magnates did not necessarily have a place in there. But I did find one in the end. [Str1977] Remember, Hochhuth's work is fiction. And he has a reputation of being wrongheaded. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument That is even if your accusations are correct, but argument is flawed as I have stated many times. There was no formal cooperation with evil – maybe a material one, but not a formal one (Go and look up what the terms mean). [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/ Off-topic You might disagree, but it is not your job to tell a Pope or anyone else what is not his business. But in this case, there was no papal subversion of democracy. Maybe a Kaasian, but not a papal. The Pope was not involved and the Weimar Republic was already tumbling since 1930.
 * Denialism Argument/Monsignor Calm down, find out when Kaas was made a Prelate and Monsignore and I will be more than happy to include this fact. But we cannot call him Monsignore Kaas every time. It is common in an ecyclopedia to use a short form of the name (usually the family name) or a pronoun to denote the subject of an entry. There is nothing sinister about that.
 * He at that time was no representative of the Holy See (he was in April 1933) – he was a cathedral canon of Trier, he was a politician and parliamentarian, a delegate to the League of nations, a professor. [Str1977]


 * Denialism Argument/8 April Cut -off There is no evidence for concordat talks before April, 1933. Of course, Kaas thought about concordats – that was one of his academic fields – and would have liked to negotiate, but there was no partner. Of the major parties the Nazis, the Communists, the Social Democrats and probably the Liberals (DDP) were all against it. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Italian Centre Party It was not Vatican policy, let alone a clear one, to do away with them. Though the cooperation was not always easy (see the septennat dispute I included into the Centre Party). The Italian People's Party was crushed in 1924, as far as I can remember, the Lateran treaties were in 1929. The Holy See did acquiesce into the Centre's demise – there was a "quid pro quo" – but the Centre was finished anyway and Pacelli disapproved of the Centre's "early" self-dissolution. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Secrecy 8 April Kaas and Papen are reported in the humanitas timeline to do with the Holocaust for good reason (from Guenter Lewy) as joining secretly (ie by subterfuge ) in Munich before travelling on to Rome . Papen didnt 'turn up ' in Rome . He was uncovered by the Italian press . No ,this is well slanted on both pages (Centre Party ) and I guess by now on others, to shift away from Monsignor Kaas any speck or whiff of culpability, such that the Holy See is protected .{FK]
 * According to my books, Kaas was way ahead of Papen on his way to Rome. I haven't found anything about a meeting, but I will check again, if I find the time. But even they met, what does that imply? ...Papen did turn up in Rome (do you want to say he wasn't there or what?) in order to offer the concordat. He kept his mission secret, but the press found him out. So what!? [Str1977]


 * Denialism Argument/Cornwell Cornwell is a sloppy historian who did a hatchet job – but I guess he will be allowed back into the archives anytime – maybe this time he will make use of this license more often than last time. [Str1977]
 * denialism Argument/Impiety Impiety stems alone from the transgression by the Holy See of Romans 3,8 .[Fk}
 * Which I deny to have been the case. Str1977 16:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialism Argument/Kaas bullied can you give some reference for this bullying, and specifics of how it occured? Its not a terribly neutral term, but could be appropriate depending on what was done. Was their violence? Sam Spade 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have returned the book to the library. But as far as I can remember, it was a series of official letters citing this law, and this decree, basing their argument about Kaas being constantly absent, and having attained Vatican posts. There was no violence involved but between the lines one could read the message: "you better do this - you better don't to be associated with this one" On the other hand, Kaas was not too popular anymore with the Bishops, so you are probably right: "bully" is too strong. Possible alternatives: pushing, pressing, making, causing. What do you think? Str1977 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would Hitler want vengence on Kaas, btw? That could be better explained. Sam Spade 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? I'm not sure either. It's not completely rational. Maybe for messing things up? Maybe for bothering Hitler all the time with coalition negotiations (even though they very quite useful for Hitler) Maybe being a very outspoken opponent of nazism in election campaigns and in the Reichstag? Maybe even for being the leader of the one party that had the audacity to bargain (I haven't heard of any other party's attempt to get guarantees)? Again it is not clear to me at all, why, but the pressure put on the diocesis by the government is there for all to see [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Kaas/Widerstand/Goring Monsignor Kaas is reported as alerting the British contact, the Minister to the Holy See, Francis D'Arcy Osborne, the views of Hermann Göring in anti-communist sympathy with the opposition.[FK]
 * Denialism Attack/V Agent' I had better qualify the "agent of the vatican" as I say it here : this editor, who is a big cheese in English WP terms , and I guess maybe even bigger in Deutsch , this editor has stated he is a Catholic, he has assented himself to (my) particular extraction of Canonical Law and therein the catholic law states that it is the sacred duty of a catholic to uphold , and to defend in every way necessary ,the pontiff of the Church . ...We can all admire and applaud the editor's effort and expertise-especially as he is translating into english . He is doubtless worthy therefore of his high editor ranking (though he has a propensity for the use of minor for what would appear to me to be important edits). I have no personal animosity and regret that strong words-not expletive in any way - have been taken as personal when they have been directed at his avowal of church policy . I have criticised this policy as having been and remaining extremely dangerous :this is not the same as saying the editor is extremely dangerous .'' [FK}

Archive 2

 * Denialism Argument/Mowrer/Tallet Are you really accusing someone of being an agent of the Vatican? john k 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I struggle against this person for months and years almost, all my cited references are slated as rubbish and you, sir, have until now not been prepared to do anything . Your statement after reading Tallet (?) was quite clear about the church's influence , you said Kaas was not proved to have done as Mowrer accuses, yet the import of your conclusion would back Mowrer and others up totally . [FK]
 * It provided support to the idea that the Vatican agreed not to the dissolution of the Centre Party in exchange for the Concordat. {JK]


 * Denialism Argument/4 fields of As far as I see it, our arguments can be classified into several fields:
 * 1) the facts of historical events - eventually there cannot be disagreement (or balance) about that
 * 2) the historical interpretation of these events, of the motivation of agents etc - this is open to disagreeing views (though they should not be original research, according to wiki rules)
 * 3) a moral assessment of the events - that must always be based on points 1 and 2
 * 4) an assessment in regard to Christian morality in particular, to Scripture and to canon law (including conclusions for today's Church) - this must be based on points 1 and 2 and on the actual Christian morality and actual canon law (and not mere inferences from these)

Now, points 3 and 4 are valid in their own right, but not really relevant to the scope of Wikipedia. You might dislike it, but Wiki is an encyclopedia. (Though I have repeatedly pointed out to you, why your "Question of the Law" reasoning is wrong, and can do it again, one final time.)...Points 1 and 2 is what we should discuss, since these are relevant to the entries here on Wiki and this is what I propose to do....You mentioned several sources in support of your point and I am willing to check these, if you will provide exact references (page numbers, if you are using German editions, or the respective chapters). [Str1977]
 * Denialism argument/Guenter Lewy I have looked into Günther Lewy, but have found no support for your interpretation either (but you may point out some specific passages for re-reading)
 * Disingenuous -Lewy I quoted no more than the 'humanitas' timeline. All the relevant dates of movements and meetings between nazis and Popes and intermediaries are simply listed . I never quoted any assumptions from Lewy, so , far from it .  [Fk}


 * Denialism Argument/Interpretation Klemperer/Mowrer Also, your quotes from Klemperer and even Mowrer didn't seem to necessarily support your interpretation. [Str1977]
 * I have no interpretation, but you Sir , semm to have no respect for any ciation of sources . I advise the reader to see the archives and the proof . You 'Sir, already have , and you are becoming clearer in your denials -but don't blame the messenger , blame your own clerics who connived with even then bloodied hands of Hitler , self-confessed trumpeter for ant-semitism and ,in fact,the removal by murder of the jews . [FK]
 * If you will point me to the passages, I will look into Klemperer (German resistance against Hitler) or Mowrer (Germany puts back the clock) as well. [Str1977]
 * ''I did long ago, so, disingenuous . This is the finger in the collapsing di(y)ke talking-all this is designed to palliate and dilute the subject . This is bad faith . [FK]


 * Denialism Argument/1940/1943 Vatican Exchanges Another point (point 5, if you will) is your "Vatican exchange" section - it needs clarification and editing. This is a really interesting and much more rewarding field for contributing to wiki. [Str1977]
 * You ,Sir, would not say so if you realised that therein lies a second clear reference to papal secrecy, following the Bruning/Monarchy story. herein is showm that tendency to evade a paper trail in order to protect the poe from his own actions. The vatican episode does indeed repeat , and I shall revisit it, but really apart from revealing papal secrecy practice , it is more shocking for revealing widerstand attitudes and British appeaser attitudes with the papal vision of a Germany allowed to remain without repentance or ,in fact, democracy . The Pope was no less wrong at this time than the remaining british appeasers , but more wrong because he knew of the Hitlerian anti-semitic reality . [FK]


 * Denialism Argument/Lewy/Klemperer/Mowrer Sorry to say, but what I read in Lewy does not support your interpretation and Lewy is very critical of the Church. What you cited from Klemperer does not support your interpretation. Even what you quoted from Mowrer does not necessarily support your interpretation. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/ QpQ1 Tallet And please stop using John Kenney again and again. He only stated that his book referred to a quid-pro-quo in the Concordat dealings, namely trade concordat for centre party. No one here ever disputed that. [Str1977]
 * Denialsim Argument /Papal Interference The thing I'm concerned about is your constant claim, that the Pope put Hitler in power, when he didn't. Neither did Pacelli. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Church law
 * This collaboration which assisted Hitler to power is what we disagree about and now we disagree about the meaning of the historians words. Klemperer ,for one, could not be clearer and would relate to all studies previous to his own . I fear I have to say that you are misrepresenting such historical qualifications . I am repeating that historians have seen a clear involvement by the church and its papacy in German politcs ,culminating in the quid pro quo between the Concordat, the dissolution of the centre Party Germany and the Enabling Act . Church authority ignored and denied and over-ruled its own clerics within Germany in order to achieve this . As you asked ,I present the links and texts of the 1917 and 1983 Canonical codes which clearly state that only with sanction could Kaas have had a 'political career' . These two very words in the article are specious in the extreme , as is all the obfuscation and evasion. It is very obvious given these texts I quote that the political injunction existed from at least 1917 and therefore referred to all the clerics and Popes in question . These come from 1 the vatican and one assumes they are from the most up-dated version : [FK inserted the Canons]


 * Denialism Argument/Kaas' words 23 MarchIt was on the 9 th of June this year that Str1977 himself added the following reference to these subjects of christian and particularly here, Papal, collaboration with Hitlerism which concerns the actions and words of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas leader (chairman) of the Catholic (Centre)Party in Weimar(pre-Hitler) Germany :


 * ....when the Centre fraction assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, he still advised his fellow party members to support the bill, given the "precarious state of the fraction", he described as follows: "On the one hand we must [oppose] to preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasent consequences......
 * Note that oppose to are not found in the actual quote. The former is FK's unwarranted insertion, the latter my typo. For more see below. (Str 1977)
 * which concerns the catholic Centre Party Germany vote to complete the required two thirds palrliamentary majority required to abolish democracy, in Berlin on 23 March 1933 and hand dictatorial power toAdolf Hitler and the Nazi party . I include the italicised 'oppose' for clarity and refer readers to all previous analysis /threads , but here I list the proven {church/divine/canonical/biblical/moral) injunctions :
 * Case proved -
 * -Ludwig Kaas excommunicated himself at that action against his soul.
 * -Pope Pius XI excommunicated himself from his words in May 1932, as I cited repeatedly from Mowrer and Otto Brok preferring Nazism to the possibility of Communism
 * -Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli excommunicated himself at writing those his pontiff's words to :-Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, who read them at the Centre Party ledership meeeting in May 1932 fully one year prior to the enabling act democratic suicide.
 * This is not a POV /NPOV issue . Words have not yet been used to fully describe what this exactly has had in importance, and because the efects are remaining , viz, the Middle East , words may never finish describing the importance of this indescribable moment in history . I have limited myself as much as possible to the simple provision of the reports and of the histories assembled in the english language.

After this, Dr. Kaas pointed out the precarious situation of the fraction in the current moment. It was important on one hand to preserve our soul and on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What was left was only to safeguard us against the worst. If the 2/3-majority were not reached, the implementation of the government's plan would occur by another way. The President has accept (or resigned to) the Enabling act. From the DNVP too no attempt of allieviating the situation is to be expected. Dr. Kaas refused to himself make a proposal how to decide. You can read now for yourself what Kaas said (it's in the reported speech of protocol).
 * Denialism Argument/Kaas' words For the benefit of non-German speaker, I have translated this as closely as possible (so please excuse the clumsiness of the following text:
 * Your conclusions from that little quote I put in, unfortunately with a typo (superfluous "to") are unfounded. Kaas did not say "opposing" (your inclusion) is necessary to "preserve the soul". That might be your view or my view but from the quote not necessarily Kaas' view and from the context certainly not Kaas' view. He goes on to win the fraction for an unanimously vote in favour of the Act. Kaas certainly was aware that it was a problematic move, a move he didn't like (and hence my opposition to your quick jumping), especially since the "assurances" were not very reliable.
 * Also, even if your reasoning on the alleged excommunications were correct, you cannot base any case on a letter neither of us has read. We have only Mowrer's rendition of Brok's exlamations that night.


 * Denialsim Argument)mcClenon)/ Cornwell I agree with you more than I do with Str1977 about Cornwell and Pope Pius XII. [RMcC]
 * I feel, if not experience , that there should be a straightforward resolution of the FK/Str editorial conflicts . That it is not a question of recantation , but of reason . I will go so far as to say I was wrong to impugn the motives of Str1977 , and hope this to be correct ..... I do deny , however , that this re-building of vision is research : I am referring to published sources . Public sources ..... . I really believe that reconciliation -I mean within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church and within the body of its adherents who are the church - is both possible and necessary ..... . I believe that the ecclesiastics acted through will , possibly (though I think I have pretty much cast this in doubt), possibly goodwill .  [FK]


 * Denialism Argument/Sources rendition . We should publicly declare to adhere to reported sources, and when they contradict , then the contradictions should be asserted , there , together in the articles ....Could we not agree to paraphrase sources , and expand them under fair use in parallel temporarily upon the discussion pages ? [FK]15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive 3

 * Denialism Argument/Megamemex Timeline We could start by using goodwill here on this page about Kaas . Now ,the MegaMemex timeline 1 quite clearly quotes Lewy as its source for some, but not all the movements of Kaas . I have quoted these on the Pius XII article, they seem to be in good faith and certainly show that Kaas seems to have been dancing a jig between Hitler and the vatican . Indeed they seem to show the quid pro quo evolution . You had access to Lewy and attacked me for misreading lewy. I only claimed the timeline statements . Are they wrong ?
 * Denialism Argument/Pacelli friendship Why should you deny(in our correspondence) that Kaas became close to Pacelli which they state in a search of MegaMemex under his name that he did become so, from 1925, when he became Secretary to Cardinal Pacelli ? [FK]
 * Denialism Argument/Kaas Secretaryship 1925 I note that you do not show the secretayship from 1925 . In good will I determine that you have purposely excluded this, [FK]
 * Denialism Argument/Secrecy 8 April, as you have excluded the MegaMemex determination of secrecy concerning his meeting with papen in Munich . They quote that Papen tried to evade the real reason for his journey to Rome , and this seems at variance with the tone of the article as constructed . There seems to me to be an unwillingness to allude to that which in any way supports the deep suspicions in several histories concerning the quid pro quo from the Enabling Act to the Concordat . [FK]
 * Denialism/Hierarchy/Kaas You will note that the approbation at the Fulda conference, included , along with Kaas' stated views of Hitler, and Pius XI stated view to Papen only a few days apart , and the birthday telegram to Hitler from Kaas - not the Pope (though there may have been one from him as Head of State) do not appear here and have been denied elsewhere , as well as here, if I remember right ..... May I ask you why you Str1977 disallow these several connections -all of which serve to confirm the letter ( papal instruction to the centre Party of may 1932 ) and would you do this here under the even handed gaze of Robert McClenon ? [FK]
 * Denialism Argument/McClenon/SpecificityPlease be specific in identiying what statements in this article are considered to be non-neutral POV. Robert McClenon 16:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/Arbitration I did as you suggested Robert McClenon and wrote up a Pope Hitler Holocaust Conspiracy article page -it is vandal stuff and dis-allowed. Must be the only way you can join Hitler and Pope is like that and not Pope's Hitler . Ill try that -it wants to be short. However the allegations will still have to be part of all pages, or perhaps none whatever , like before I made this awful smell in the land of soap . If I'm wrong , mediate , arbitrate and judge me , then shoot me off the wiki , and I'll go round the side . [FK]
 * denialism Argument/Soul . I recognised upon my Pope's Hitler- even you could see the logic of that name -article, there I was using your quote about soul - and what do I see but that at 11.15 or so in the morning Kaas is proffering no suggestion towards any action . I forget the exact words ,and we both know to what I refer, the disparity between that in the official record/report and his handing over the Party vote in the Opera House, at whatever time, a few hours at most . You are as ever the only person with any inkling or concern in here other than myself about this subject . We both know this subject to be the single central encompassing moment of modern history . The political is obvious . The moral I have forced you to your knees on - admit that or don't , I no longer require anything .The psychological is the really interesting , as the moment of the suicide is of such an expanding nature . This fracture of the soul , referred to twice on that day as I on this day sourced ( in the speech the brave Social Democrat defying the Fuhrer) together with Kaas' option , in your opinion or necessity, but against my normal run-of -the-mill sources, option for fraction of soul over fraction of party , there is the psychological centre . [FK]
 * Denialism Argument/Kaas centrality/Wikipedia When I say that you win [Str1977]I mean only that I do not see the upgrading of even wikipedians to the broad consequences of Ludwig Kaas . [Fk}
 * Denialism Argument/letter of Guarantee The reasoning for Kaas, and yet the treachery for Bruning and the Social Democrat are at any rate with Bruning , only bridged by the absent but promised and un-received letter of guarantee . ...You may or may not weaken in your reckoning of morals against expediency -I offered the proof which you can take or leave as your conscience desires . For me the loss is the weakening of a will to advance us. [FK]
 * Denialism Argument/Jimbo Guidelines It appears that I am ordered to provide a spec. on the case and it to be as brief as possible .
 *  WP-Minority view doesn't belong in WP regardless of whether it is true or not, or regardless of proof , and 'Majority viewpoint should be easy to substantiate from reference texts' . 'If only the favourable (or the unfair) facts of a point of view are shown , the article will still be neutral'
 * WP- 'Un-biased characterisation of disputes'. 'Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices, but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place' .
 * WP- 'we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views'. 'Fair characterisation describes but does not advocate ' . 'Belief is objective fact' . I 'describe or I imply, insinuate or subtly massage'.


 * Denialism Argument/McC attack FK Famekeeper is absolutely correct that reader fatigue is a limitation to the development of the Wikipedia. However, what has actually happened is that the minority, Famekeeper, has fatigued everyone else so that no one else has the energy to discuss how to improve the pages in question, because the talk pages are being filibustered. I have repeatedly asked him to identify specific areas in the articles where sourced criticisms should be added.[RMcC]
 * ''I had everywhere inserted relevant historic comment, sourced on talk , and everywhere been reverted . Even today . I even 'rev' back to myself , but it gets stupid , now, doesn't it ? These are one way criticisms And I note the tone in "You asked for it. You got it. Sounds physical . I am sorry if I have so alienated you , but I am the one forced to the repetition . I could just hit the revert button . [FK] 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Denialsim Argument/Source summary/incl.Lambert Margaret Lambert, Faber 1934 p 259 . " The Catholic Centre party in the Saar had been vigourously attacking the Nazis in its paper, the landeszeitung . However on March 28th 1933 , there appeared an article strongly advocating a return to Germany . Attacks on Hitler gradually disappeard and the Saar Centre party following the example of the corresponding German party came into line with the Nazis , though disapproving of many of their actions . Although the Concordat negotiated between the Catholic Church and the National Socialists in Germany does not apply to the Saar , the fact of such an agreement had a determining influence on the Centre party's attitude there . So,here within a few months there was published notice that the Centre had been , despite its own longstanding moral disapproval , obviated politically by an agreement between the Holy See and the Nazis See
 * In purely catholic terms I have had to give notice to the catholic code of legality which relates to this abandonment of morals, since the instructing of the party concurs with the stated opinion of welcome given by Pius XI to the Fuhrer ( quoted through German Foreign Secretary von Papen ) . In shortest possible summary , it would historically appear un-disputed that a successful destabilising anti-moral quid pro quo was organised by the Holy See . [FK]


 * Denialism Argument/McClenon re Discussion Pages/POV By the way, you and I are both allowed to express POV on talk pages. But we should try to work toward NPOV. You have never yet provided me with a short summary of what the POV issues are....I do not think that you know how to provide a short summary of issues. I suggest that you go back to the Wikipedia:Village pump and ask for a mentor or an advocate. I think that, if you want to take part in Wikipedia, you need to change your style very significantly....If you simply want to state your viewpoint, I suggest that you create your own web site. Robert McClenon 00:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I shall redo the actual Kaas article critique, is there a mediator ?Famekeeper 11:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive 4

 * Denialism Argument/Ad hominem/ McClenon I agree with Famekeeper that the arguments for moral complicity by Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII should be presented as points of view held by some scholars. I disagree with any claim that there has been proof of moral complicity. A statement as to these points of view should be written. I do not think that it can be written by Famekeeper, who does not understand the difficult concept of NPOV .[RMcC]
 * Denialism Argument/McClenon understands Str1977 You ask me to demand a similar critique from Str1977. I am not making that demand, because I think that I understand what he is saying. He often does state his case in less than 500 words. [RMcC]
 * Denialism Argument/Mcclenon/no Willed ErrorWhen I came into this dispute with you, I was more in agreement with you than with Str1977 as to the POV of whether Pope Pius XII and the Centre Party (Germany) had been guilty of moral errors that contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. I still think so, but not because of your arguments. You have claimed to make a case of willed or malicious moral error. I do not see that case.... I do not see a summary, or proof.[RMcC]


 * Denialism Argument/McClenon sees no censorship I also asked whether you could prove that Str1977 had engaged in censorship. You presented a list of instances of "Massage/Censorship". It appears that these are simply cases of re-editing. You, Famekeeper, have not made a case that persuades me that Str1977 has been engaged in "censorship", only in editing. ..... I would prefer to see this resolved quietly. Robert McClenon 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/FK demos censorship diff EffK/FK answers with full diffs -
 * Arbitration was originally Famekeeper's demand, and I see no reason to demand arbitration unless the content of article pages is jeopardized. [RMcC]


 * Denialism Argument/Kaas at Kaas Article Any discussion of moral errors by Ludwig Kaas, presented as POV with sources, should be in the Ludwig Kaas article. It does have an NPOV banner, and is waiting for expansion. I think that the current article does need to be expanded to include criticisms of Kaas.[RMcC]
 * Denialism Argument/Centre at Centre Article Any discussion of moral errors by the Centre Party (Germany) in its assent to the Enabling Act should be in the Centre Party article.[RMcC]
 * Denialism Argument/Pius XII at Pius XII Any discussion of criticisms of Pope Pius XII, presented as POV with sources, should be in the Pope Pius XII article. It appears to me that the current article does present the criticisms and responses to criticisms reasonably well.[RMcC]
 * Denialism Argument/McClenon Conclusion/No prevention of FK editing No one is preventing Famekeeper from trying to expand the Ludwig Kaas or Centre Party articles, which could benefit from addition of sourced analyses. No one, that is, except perhaps Famekeeper's anger and impatience and distrust. Robert McClenon 15:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Distrust temporarily overcome. If this is rv'd, that will return . FK 07:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you please source this. I never heard of this. "and Pacelli was a great influence on his life" Isn't that a bit POV. How would you prove this. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Pacelli Secretary/friendship Some questions/remarks about your edits: "From 1925 onwards Kaas served ecclesiastically as secretary to Bishop Nuncio Pacelli"
 * denialism Argument/Bruning/No treachery statement In regard to the Enabling Act I copied over the more detailed section from the Centre Party, as there was no accusations of treachery by Brüning at that time and you again misinterpreted the "Soul quote". [Str1977]
 *  Denialism Argument/Hitler Kaas Committee I also reinserted a mentioning of the "working commitee" at the proper chronological place" [Str1977]
 * denialism Argument/Christian Dictatorship I removed "had finally achieved that which in 1932 the papacy had required- an apparently christian Dictatorship.", as you have no proof provided for that.[Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/QpQ counter-argument I also rephrased the QPP point to be more NPOV and also included the counter-argument. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/ Papen-Kaas/ Secrecy 8-9 April I rephrased the holiday reference to include skiing in a more flent way and rephrased his real objective to "offically offer the nationwide concordat" - that's what we know for certain and hence it is NPOV, exlcuding neither your view nor mine. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/ Kaas draftee for Concordat I merged the "drafting" by Kaas with the negotiations, because they're referring to the same thing. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Mowrer accepted According to one report, Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli supported this policy through a letter, estimating Hitler as a bulwark against the Communists. This however is not corroborated by any other source and as long as neither the exact wording nor any qualifications in this letter are known, interpretations will remain speculative. Dear Robert, though I don't agree with FK's interpretation I think this sufficently sourced to be included in the de-pov'ed shape I have given it. Str1977 16:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * New Page for controversy Today Im suggesting to good ol' Str that we can rsolve all inter-related issues re Kaas(Pacelli, Hitler) thru Hitler's Pope receiving all the controversy re :the quid pro quo arranged . The these ecclesiastics look a bit better . Trade off is , a seelaso:link from these clean pages , to the accusations under Hitler's Pope . That's gotta be reasonable ?Famekeeper 10:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/rv of Sources This article is still un-acceptable as diminuishing the historians clear linkage of interests to the Holy See . The denial of sources ,by Str1977 and Robert McClenon ,is perverse and contrary to WP policy . Do not believe the article is the history, for Kaas was the link betwen Hitler and the vatican in the series of trade -offs that allowed Europe to slide towards inevitable conflict and inevitable ( Nazi policy for ) anti-semitic genocide . The policy of these editors is to break this link as far as is possible , and since it is not sourced , whereas the link is , it is purely a reflection of POV whitewash . Read the sources as you can , peruse the desperate posting which gets no further than revert war . FK 20:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC
 * FK, I have included your POV as POV far as it was reasonable. There is not "the historian's clear linkage" you claim there is. I've got nothing more to say on your post. Sign your posts. Str1977 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I reject this appparently pleasant reference to my POV . FK


 * Denialism Argument/Secret Annexe in Concordat I have to deal with you on this Str1977 because you earlier managed tyo remove this . however there on the reichskonkordat it is clearly claimed, and claimed as contravening the versailles treaty . I would expect you to negotiate any alteration to this explosive fact there upon that page beyond furhter dispute, or without further dispute . FK
 * I don't know, Fk, what this annex has to do with Kaas. It's an Concordat issue and should be discussed there. However, I cannot recall ever removing this annex and, quite frankly, I don't think it really explosive or shocking. [Str1977]
 * You did remove it and provided some close, meaning, fine reasoning . FK


 * Denialism Argument/Source denialism I am not able to base editing or even thinking on generalised political interpretations of the Weimar, Hitler or any other motivation except in so far as I see it relating to close fact . Unless closely following published source . if you would follow so, then I would probably accept that form of interpretation . I am interested in facts, their legality and their categorisation . Kaas' private meeting was fact, and seemed to be excluded and trans-whatever for a long time . it is also fact that Kaas is published as intermediary because of such meeting and its vert privacy . FK
 * dDenialism Argument/1920's RKKDt negotiations Mine is in line that particularly as I state the Concordat failed because of the very distrust felt toward Pacelli and the Vatican in the matter throughout the 20's and even in the Centre Party. So I beg to seriously differ and request revert to mine. FK
 * Denialism Argument/Committee You took out the whole work committeee from 15 march onwards, and removed the 20 22 negotiations referred to by me elsewhere, with Stegerwald definitely present, possibly not Kaas at all because un-named, with ecclesiatical conditions as well as contitutional . put it back as I wrote . FK
 * Maybe you are confusing two things: the negotiations at this time before the bill was passed, and the working commitee which was part of the agreement reached.

Not what Shirer states or others. the negotiations followed as I said the cabinet where there was big row between AH and hugenberg, but it was seen that the remaining issue was the Centre and how to win their vote to pass the EAct. That was the Working Committeee. Quote source if different. FK
 * Quote source verbatim and well have parallel versions if need be . i dont accept what you say . the EAct is abundantly clear . the only remaining laws were imposed without neccesity for Kaas or any of them to vote any more . FK


 * Denialism Argument/Hitler 23 Speech To say that Kaas influenced the speech (if you turn your passive into active voice) is utterly misleading. {Str1977]
 * ''I sourced close relation of Kaas(the Church) into this speech . The historians say this, It is linked and recognised , so why do you do this . I say if you have different source make it known , you haven't ever provided such whereas I have repeatedly.

I sourced this, so change re Klemperer and do not insult him more (KVK). I do not see any reference to the Work committee (correct English spelling NB) at the 31 Mar(he left Rome ) nor the 1 April. The meeting was Apr 2'' FK
 * Denialism Argument/Centre as bloc in ENabling Act "Kaas himself nevertheless handed the entire centre Bloc vote ...": this wording is unacceptable. [Str1977]
 * Kaas did hand their vote included en bloc-or so I reported since the start . FK
 * If so, than again it's the mere formalia [Str1977]


 * denialism Argument/treachery per Bruning "for the democratically treacherous Act": un-encycopedic language. [Str1977]
 * This relates to the fact and to the political recognition of Bruning . I protest at deflection ,You are by this against the educational interest and I protest . FK


 * Denialism Argument/FK non-native English speaker Sorry, despite good faith and all, but I don't believe you are a native speaker. [Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/23 March Reichstag sessions split "Evening assembly" might exist, but my wording IMHO flows more naturally. {Str1977]
 * Denialism Argument/Kaas departure 24 March History sources do not describe, to me, Kaas as "managing" to leave : this is POV down-sizing to Eupen/Malmedy(one of them (which ?) French speaking . It appears to be massage? FK
 * Denialism Argument/Committee You replace the working committee, again sources say this started work as I said immediately following 1st |Cabinet of co-alition with Nationalists on 15 march . No mentions in my source of that continuing after Enabling Act-you may have something about the ! April, please prove that for me in some fashion , as to at least who writes that, please. The promised during Enabling Act- no one I know says that. promises are indeed the point . May I ask , are you able to back this up , as it seems like a desire to deflect and declarify the question of unknown promises : there as far as I have sources no promise to provide a working Commmitteee from the as youy call it EA @negotiations' and this appears to me no more than an attempt to deflect from the private Hitler audiece after being there in Rome and it is legitimate to see, paving the way for something.
 * denialism Argument/Off topic removals I removed the Göring reception, because this is an article on Kaas, not on Papen, Göring, Pius XI or the Concordat. [Str1977]
 * denialism Argument/secrecy not important to us Also the Papen secrecy issue does really not need that much coverage. What was in the article before your edit was clear and concise. That the press found him out is of interest to them, but not so much to us. {Str1977]

Archive 5

 * Denialism Argument/''ad hominem/McClenon Also, I assume that Str1977 assumed that Famekeeper was a native speaker of Spanish because it appears that he has a lack of mastery of English, as well as an ignorance of standard English rules of capitalization and punctuation.[RMcC]
 * ''"Ad hominem" means attacking a person instead of his argument(s). Which I have never seen from Robert so far. [Str1977]


 * Denialism Argument/FK more right than wrong/McClenon I thought that Famekeeper was more right than wrong on the facts of whether Pope Pius XII had been guilty of moral error. I did not try to mediate, but I did try to provide a third opinion. [RMcC]
 * Denialism Argument/Secret Annexe . By the way would you kindly refer yourself to your reasoning re the "Secret Annexe" which is relevant to to this page and many others,such that that particular point is dealt with . Or do you accept the analysis as presented on the Reichskonkordat ? FK
 * Regarding the annex: your question might be valid but not on the Kaas page. We don't include other details about the concordat here, and for good reason, and so this needn't be included here as well. I said here, the Rkonkordat page of course is open for that. Though, as you might expect, I still disagree with your conclusions from the annex and especially with your moral considerations. Str1977 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The subject of this page is relevant to the Reichskonkordat as the subject wrote it. Only unproved is whether the secret annexe was the outcome of the 2 April private meeting with Hitler following subjects return from the Vatican, This above is irrefutable need for topic inclusion and irrefutable proof of bad faith . FK


 * Denialism Argument/AH-Kaas 2 April I congratulate you, Str1977 ,on finally accepting my requirement for the inclusion of this meeting. I still reject entirely the manner in which you massage this page so brazenly . I could easily, and well may , look up precisely when you first reverted this little mystery between Kaas and Hitler of 2 April 1933. . As someone said on WP I think today , the WP does not exist for German editors to repair a history that does not gratify them . You ,particularly , have been placing your mental beach towel just that little bit too regularly . I would really advise you to finally have a change of heaart and accept all the sources I always provided . EffK 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 *  I still am not sure about this meeting, as I have found nothing on this and suspect that it might be one of the Working commitee meetings in another wording. [Str1977]
 * I have sourced the negotiations with Stegerwald and Kaas, but you Str have never sourced your constant reference to a working committee in April . The megamemex resource lists the private meeting . Please source that to which I find no reference. EffK
 * Ludwig Volk Das Reichskonkordat von 20. Juli 1933. Von den Ansätzen in der Weimarer Republik bis zur Ratifizierung am 10. September, page 87 - footnote 147. [Str1977}


 * Denialism Argumnet/German Hierarchy[Str1977] Rm "but, also , that these strengthened only in 1937"
 * again unwarranted and barelaying his[FK] prejudices.
 * I fear not . What is incorrect massage is your passage suggesting considerable Church criticism . All source remarks the volte face of reduced criticism accompanying the papal approbation . All source remarks the damage done to Germany and to its' Catholics by the u-turn allowing catholics Nazi membership, the Bishops accepting the Pacelli/Pius XI line. EffK


 * Denialism Argument/Gumpel ref to Kaas [str1977] Rm "The subject does not recede from History and is referred to by Father Gumpel, the cleric charged with qualifying Pope Pius XII for sainthood. Gumpel claims that Brüning artifically accuses Kaas " because he worked with [Pius XII]/Pacelli ". EffK
 * Denialism Argument/Spource by WP norms You should remember that this is the en.wp, so please translate sources, presumably short from their page -as I have bothered to do . Effk
 * Denialism Argument/Catholic Editing Readers should understand that roman catholicism abjures as one of its principal laws the complete obedience of the pontiff, and the complete defence of the pontiff. the foremer it was to which my removed edit referred-the Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote shows papal order to germany's catholics(small c-the flock) to invest Hitler ASAP in 1932 . Hence the extreme battle with me, hence the need to destroy my reputation, and the attempt to remove me from Wikipedia. EffK
 * Denialism Argument/No link Kaas-Hitler Yep, its mad and hard to spot, but it's happening. Kaas doesn't link to Hitler.etc EffK 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article most certainly does link to Adolf Hitler. See here. john k 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually this article most certainly doesn't link from Hitler to Kaas, and I have said this for some time. Kaas is mentioned twice at least, but no link. EffK

EffK 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Denialism Argument/POV massage list at includes 29 examples of Wikipedia's Kaas massage. EffK
 * Denialism Argument/Klemperer on Kaas The Prelate, Monsignor Kaas was the Chairman of the zentrumspartei or Centre Party Germany, and negotiated alone the mysterious and un-received Hitler 'letter of Constitutional Guarantee' as clincher for the Centre bloc supporting the Enabling Act of 23 March. Since this gave Hitler dictatorial powers, the political importance of Kaas is unequivocal, as in these texts here: , the first is Klemperer, second Bullock, then Shirer "except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social democratic deputies, it was all done quite legally, though accompanied by terror."

Archive 6

 * Denialism Argument/Conspiracy/Nuremberg . Hitler it is everywhere suggested came to power legally, thus it becomes necessary to source the Nuremberg tribunal Indictment as to the history. hopefully this will immediately inform the editing of this and related articles in the particular ,


 * COUNT ONE: THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas/Archive6


 * Denialism Argument/ Archiving as Edit War Robert McClenon sends Nuremberg source into Archive within 6 minutes of EffK posting it as source for NPOV see