Talk:Pave the Way Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template removal {{POV|date=July 2009}}[edit]

I removed the {{POV|date=July 2009}} template because it does not meet the requirements of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute&oldid=323598742#Adding_a_page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pave_the_Way_Foundation&action=edit

"Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which you see a bias about which there is no discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution."

--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section[edit]

This one-sided article is missing a section reporting on the strong public criticism of recent years against this organisation. --Diggindeeper (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment gift to Italian hospital[edit]

There are no citations concerning this gift. I cannot find anything on the web with further details. The issuance of the papal knight degree is not in doubt, but the text concerning the hospital equipment gift should be citated or removed. --216.36.122.117 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is non-neutral, biased against PTWF[edit]

This article has a disproportionate amount of harsh attacks. I define "harsh attack" as as accusation against someone's integrity. Saying for example "Obama's administration has been criticized for spending too much money" is not a harsh attack. But saying "Obama is criticized for lying and betraying America" is a harsh attack.

This article has, in its short intro, the sentence "Krupp, a non-historian, has been subject to criticism from historians for spreading misinformation relating to Pius XII." This kind of attack is absent from the intros of most Wikipedia articles I've seen. That includes the articles of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic Church. These 4 institutions have very harsh critics, but none of the 4 Wikipedia articles chose to put attacks in the Introduction.

This article also has a ridiculous amount of attacks in the sections "Criticism" and even, ironically, in the section "praise".

In the section "Praise for Pius XII related activities" we find

The New York Times reported that "several historians called to ask him to cancel his three-day conference in Rome, which ultimately drew many Vatican-friendly scholars but few with independent credentials". One Catholic historian, Paul O’Shea, tried to warn Krupp that proponents of canonization might be trying to use him. He urged Mr. Krupp to wait for the Vatican to open its files, and for scholars to complete their work, before reaching conclusions.[21] O'Shea was in turn subjected to a "blistering attack" in his absence by one of the conference participants.[22]

In the section "Criticism of Pius XII related activities" we find more than a page of attacks, including

"harsh criticism",

“amateurish, worse than amateurish — risible.”

"He may be well-meaning, but his lack of experience in international affairs and historical research makes Mr. Krupp highly vulnerable to being manipulated by factions inside the Vatican"

“discrediting itself by associating itself with this kind of questionable scholarship.”

"Whether he [Gary Krupp] understands it or not, he is waging a campaign of misinformation...He's been given out-of-context documents and is coming to overblown conclusions about Pius XII's personal involvement and that is a disservice to historians and to the historical truth."

"materials presented by Pave the Way Foundation are part of a campaign of misinformation by some Pius apologists who use selective church documents and issue unsubstantiated conclusions about Pius XII"


"This is an example of Pave the Way’s campaign of misinformation that makes a disservice to Catholic and Jewish scholars,”

"O'Shea, of the Australian Institute of Holocaust and Genocide Studies also asserts that “Pave the Way" are masters at creating a media flurry. They are not trained historians. They believe that by creating a deluge of paper with information that is favorable to their perception of Pius XII, they can create a new reality about the wartime pope,”

""findings of documents in a misleading way" by implying that the Catholic Church had always been opposed to the Nazi Party."

This is clearly out of proportion. I compared it with the articles for 4 other institutions: Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States), Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention

I assure you the all these 4 institutions (specially the first 3) have many critics, and we could write 1000 pages of harsh attacks against them. But none of the four articles did this. We could fill all of the Republican Party article with "Republicans lie", "Republicans exploit the poor", etc. But Wikipedia chooses not to. All four of the articles devote only only a tiny amount of text (if any at all) to attacks.

I therefore request that this present article be made similar to other Wikipedia articles.

Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Pius XII work of Pave the Way which generates most of news about the group. You appear to approve of a lede which references their claimed deconstruction of Hilter's Pope sterotypes but you don't want the opinion of scholars who don't accept the worth of their work in the lede. The body of the article should represent what reliable sources print about them, not what their publicity material says. I intended to have an "Assesment" or "Reception" section which reviewed their controversial Pius XII work and began with opinions derived from scholars. Unfortunately I couldn't find any independent historians, for example, who praised their work but I intended to add to it as soon as I found any, but meantime agreed to another editors change of heading to "Criticisms". Somebody has subsequently added a "Praises" section and though not based on scholarly comment it was notable. Your idea about balance seems different to mine. If the bulk of scholarly opinion on a subject leans one way then that is what we follow on Wikipedia. Mr Krupp and his foundation are purporting to be carrying out historical research and then publishing their claims widely through the popular media we therefore do not use the criteria commonly invoked with politicians and their parties but those used for works of history and in doing so we follow the balance of independent scholarly opinion not some notional 50/50 arrangement. Yt95 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "the bulk of scholarly opinion on a subject leans one way" - look at the places you looked: the New York Times (often accused of anti-catholicism) and the ADL (extremely aggressive in labeling everyone as anti-semitic). Your sources have a cause. And it seems you too have a cause.
Just look at the language - they make attacks on the integrity of Krupp and his organization. This is not the language of impartial scholars; this is the language of activists. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, look at the language I excerpted above. I don't see this kind of language in published scholarly works. But I DO see this kind of language in political propaganda fostering intrigue - which Wikipedia shouldn't do. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Krupp is a retired seller of medical equipment. He has no qualifications in the study of history. It's not surprising therefore that people who are trained find fault with his work. The people your are suggesting, as Mr Krupp does also, as having an agenda include Professors of history, ethics, scholars specializing in the holocaust and priest-scholars. When you commented in the article text about "anti-catholics" I tried to gently point out by noting that three of the "offenders" are Catholics and one was a member of the clergy but now you have switched to the line that they have an agenda. As best I know none of these people run an advocacy site, it's Mr Krupp that does that. You suggest I have limited myself to partisan sources such the New York Times but that is clearly not so as mentioned above. The New York Times article is indeed one source but it appears to have been written with the co-operation of Mr Krupp. If you think we should only use independent scholarly sources and drop the New York Times then I won't argue the point but then you will have nothing in the "praises" section, nor will you be left with much in opening sections which depend on the pr material of Pave the Way. If you have independent scholarly sources that praise Mr Krupps historical work then please add them to the article, nobody is stopping you. As for your comments on ADL: I don't know anything about them but if you look closer they are actually basing their opinion on a Catholic holocaust scholars work. As it happens I am reading a scholarly work just now that uses one of the reports carried out on their behalf and the professor of history raises no questions about it's scholary integrity so you will have to convince me that they are not a reliable source. I don't use this in a legalistic manner- if you simply show me that that reports they have produced by people like historian Paul O'Shea are no good then there would be no argument on my part. Yt95 (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) It is not about "finding fault", it is about making attacks at his integrity (for which they most likely have no sources), and using activist language. The language of the quotes you include in this article is the language of Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow, not the language of scholars.
2) That the quotes come from nominal scholars does not preclude the possibility of them having an agenda of personal involvement in this case. Specially if the quotes were collected by the New York Times and the ADL
3) I didn't "switch the line". Please read what I write, yes? And being nominally "Catholic" does not at all preclude the possibility of having an anti-Pope agenda; there are many, many examples of that. There is, for example, one organization that calls itself "Catholics for Choice" but engages in activism to remove the Holy See from the UN. Anyone can call itself "Catholic"; there is no trademark. That the ADL worked with "Catholic" sources does not at all preclude bias. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scholars in question say he is not using the methods of historians by taking selective individual documents to prove what he believes but ignoring others that show what he doesn't want to believe. Historical investigation, especially in relation to the interpretation of documents, is heavily based on surrounding contextual data. That they are critical of this "cardinal sin" is hardly surprising. The only part I can see that has any bearing on what you suggest is the comment by one historian that he may be being used by a faction within the Vatican to promote the cause of Pius XII. This indeed might sound a little harsh but when you consider the vast scholarly resources the RCC has at it's disposal to research and disseminate such material it might indeed seem strange that instead of using those sources they choose a retired salesman to do this for them. It would be beyond belief that any credible historian who values his reputation would use the methods of Mr Krupp so when that scholar suggests he is being used by a faction within the Vatican [as a Jew?] I can't instantly dismiss it as you suggest as a personal attack. Now as to the "agenda matter" you and Mr Krupp attribute to those scholars. I don't care about your internal theological disputes, what I do care about is historical accuracy. None of the Catholics scholars mentioned in this article, as best I know, are involved in internecine disputes about changing your regulations relating to abortion, women priests, contraception etc. Even if they were it doesn't devalue their work as historians because like all scholars they may have their own personal opinions about these things but they value much their reputation for objectivity in their own fields of study. Looking at your edit history you seem to have a particular interest in these subjects, areas which I have never edited. Does that mean I think you have an agenda and shouldn't be editing this article? No. It is YOU who are attacking the integrity of those scholars, including clergy, by raising the "agenda" conspiracy theory. They give details of why they object to Mr Krupps work and to anyone with an open mind they are clearly not unreasonable. If you feel that the article isn't neutral then contribute balancing scholarly information based on the criteria set out in my previous posts otherwise the neutrality tag placed at the top of the page is being misused. If you disagree take it to the adminstrators noticeboard, as I have previously advised, in the hope that it will attract independent opinion that knows the difference between scholarly/fringe opinions and how to weight them in the article. Yt95 (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pave the Way Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pave the Way Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PR tone[edit]

I placed a tag on the articles, and sugegst that the laudatory tone of the first part would be remedied by removing the second parapgraph of the lede:

Through inter-religious projects and concrete gestures of good will, PTWF identifies and eliminates obstacles between people of faith. PTWF utilizes an earned level of trust in order to "pave the way" towards improving inter-religious relations and encouraging intra-religious exchanges. PTWF tasks the faithful of all beliefs to recognize that the true danger to..."

The first, appropriate, paragraph of the lede already says that the organization hopes to do these good things, and that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pave_the_Way_Foundation&oldid=1198541502"