Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII[edit]

Self-nom (although others have worked on this as well). This is an extremely comprehensive, well-referenced, and neutral biography of an important and somewhat controversial Pope. It received Good Article status on April 27 and has had two peer reviews since then which turned up no major problems and improved the article further. Its size (~53K) is appropriate in my judgment; if you feel it is too large, keep in mind that the size is inflated by the extensive references and end materials. This article has had its share of edit warring over the years; however, the current version has been free from major disputes for a long time. It has also been stable for a few days since I finished making a series of minor edits. I hope that you’ll see fit to join me in supporting this article. Otherwise, I will do my best to address any actionable objections. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 38KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style

Support A very well-written, well-sourced, well-image'd article. Happy to be the first support and now I'm going to go enjoy reading it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestions Looks like a really good and well-referenced article, but here's a few minor suggestions. Firstly, some of the references could probably have a bit more bibliographical information. (I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, that would be great.) Secondly, while certainly not required, links to summaries/other helpful online material for offline references could help people who do not have the offline material try to verify it. For example, for books, Amazon often provides an Online Reader that allows searching inside the book (this is suggested by WP:RS). Anyways, impressivly-referenced article, overall. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the works included in the "further reading", I included only author, date, and page number. I did this because there is no need to give the full cite repeatedly for works cited multiple times. I made this clearer with my most recent edit, I think. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes more sense now. Support. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and learned a lot. However, here are some thoughts: I'm not a fan of one- or two-sentence paragraphs or sections with only a single subsection. The lead, "Theology," and "Views..." are rife with the former, and "The Holocaust" and "Notes" (the latter) could probably be made their own principal sections. You might also consider stripping "Apostolic Constitutions" and "Encyclicals" of their status as subsections (perhaps massaging the text for flow). Perhaps "Canonizations..." and "Great Consistory" could be merged, as the former seems way too short to warrant its own subsection. "Post-World War II" seems a little inelegant to me, so something like "Post-war reign" might do. Better would be to combine that section with the following section and rename it "Later reign and death." These are all optional, but I think they would greatly improve an already fantastic article. Great work!--Monocrat 05:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the one sentence paragraphs and made "The Holocaust" and "Notes" their own sections. However, I am hesistant to merge the sections that you suggested. The canonizations section I just intended to provide links to the people that he canonized. A lot could be said about his choices, but that would probably violate our original research policies. This could even be changed to a box on the left side of the papacy section, rather than making it a section (I'll play around with that and see if it looks aescetic). I also would rather not merge the post-war section with the later life section because that would imply that he basically just started dying after WWII and in fact some of the more important elements of his papacy occured then. In my mind, the later life section starts thematically with his illness. As for the section title, I'll let you change that if you want to, but if having a section called "WWII" is fine, then "post-WII" makes a lot of sense to me. Breif and specific. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about the sections "Post-WWII" is that the last paragraph, which looks to be about half of the section, could easily go under "Views..." or under "...Legacy," leaving only his activities in anti-communism and advocacy of clemency. I also think the current location of "Theology," "Canonizations..." and "Great Consistory" is disruptive to the historical narrative. The first could be made its own section, possibly, and the others subsumed into it, or moved into an independent "Legacy" section. If this were done, "Election and coronation" could be included in "Church career". Just thoughts.--Monocrat 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the Corriera della Sera controversy in the post-war section because unlike many of the criticisms or defenses of Pius, this one was localized to only one of his specific post-war activities. I didn't want to separate the Foxman comment from the actual facts, though. As for your changes to the Papacy section, I don't really think it disrupts the historical narrative. What happens at this point is that the narrative splits into his spiritual and worldly activities. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written and documented article. I agree with Monocrat on the length of some of the subsections. I also like to see {{persondata}} on biographical articles.--NMajdan•talk 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An enjoyable, well-referenced article. --ßott e siηi ^(talk) 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was pretty good weeks ago when I looked at it about GA nomination, and well, I still think its pretty good, FA good I mean, not GA good heh. Homestarmy 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject this onesided, POVy article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, unless the article undergoes a review concerning the following items:

- Many facts are lacking context, since they are described with just one sentence. I.e. "On October 28, 1943, Weizsacker, the German Ambassador to the Vatican, telegrammed Berlin that the pope "has not allowed himself to be carried away [into] making any demonstrative statements against the deportation of the Jews."" There is a story behind this fact. It was Weizsäcker's aim to appease Berlin not to invade the vatican. Pius overwhelmed him with protests, Weizsäcker again warned Pius that provoking Berlin could have the contrary effect. Thus, Pius did not repeat the protests publicly and Weizsäcker did not deliver them to the government, but on the contrary appeased Berlin. Source: Pinchas Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews, who is not quoted one single time in this article, whereas he has rendered the earliest (1967) and most thorough research on this matter. - Another example: When mentioning the Reichskonkordat, it should be mentioned that the german "kulturkampf" of the Bismack era lead to the vatican's desire of making a concordate. Furthermore, the concordate should promote international diplomatic reputation of the young vatican state. Without these facts, the whole Idea about the concordate is completely turned upside-down. -When mentioning the circumstances of passing the enabling act, please don't forget to mention that the SPD members could not cast their votes because they were all arrested the night before (Göring was the chief of police in Prussia and there was no immunity of representatives). If the SPD members (among them also catholics) would have attended, the enabling act would not have been passed. That much to Pius and his alleged influence on the enabling act. UAltmann 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the nomination has already been closed, I'll address these on the article talk page. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]