Talk:Papal States under Pope Pius IX

Blatant bias

This is one of the most biased articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. It uses loaded language all the way through.

Take one example: The criticism of the economic policies of Pius IX included the argument that the Pope maintained in Rome large areas for agriculture and forestry at the expense of potential industrial development. Supporters of Pius point to the increases in agro-industry during his leadership, especially in the areas of silk, olive oil and wine production and great productivity gains in agriculture, accredited in part to a scientific research institute and benevolent taxation, which permitted refinancing of existing debts.

So criticism of Pius's economic policies is described as an "argument" (ie, arguable or debatable points). However supporters of Pius "point to". (One points to facts.) So the paragraph in its language states that criticism of Pius on this area is arguable, but supposed positives are matters of fact.

The paragraph also uses soft words that occur all through the article. So Pius's taxation was "benevolent". Elsewhere Pius is "credited" with actions - implying they were objectively positive. Pius's agreements are described in loaded terms like "far reaching", that are inherently POV. His support for the arts was "generous", another POV term that does not define the measurement - they were generous by what definition? His predecessors? Other European leaders? Which?

The article constantly repeats the words "great", "greatly" to describe his actions - how he "greatly" increased this or that, again with no measurement and no definition. Without definition it is entirely a POV argument.

Another example concerns the issue of Edgardo Mortana. In the view of most people at the time the child was kidnapped by the Church and that is what led to the universal condemnation of the action. Yet the article again used weasel-words to try to minimise it by saying how the Pope "politely" rejected criticism from various world leaders. That is an extraordinary use of language. The taking of the boy was seen widely as "kidnapping" and described as such even by religious leaders. How on earth then can a rejection of a call that a kidnapped child be returned to his parents be described as "polite"?

The article does that all the way through - use soft words to try to minimise criticism of Pius, use POV language to sing his praises in terms of policies, and uses language to suggest that criticism of his regime is merely "arguable" whereas the beneficial nature of his policies are objectively positive.

All-in-all, this is one of the most POV-laden articles I have ever seen on this site. It goes out of its way to make excuses for the conduct of papal rule in the Papal States (without detailed evidence or links to justify it) while goes out of its way to cast doubts on the motivation of those who criticised it - eg, Italian nationalism was "stoked" by the Napoleonic period implies that without the Napoleonic period there wouldn't have been major issues with the conduct of papal rule.

Overall this is a pretty poor, heavily biased article that seeks to talk up Pius at every opportunity and talk down or minimise criticism of him. That is something an NPOV article should never do. As a result the article is a failure from beginning to end, and effectively a worthless source of information for someone looking for a fair, objective and balanced review of Pius's reign as head of the Papal States. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)