Talk:EWTN

The Criticism Section

Would someone please cite the sources of these so-called critics and if you can't, please leave the article alone when I delete the Criticism section? This needs to be cited or it's nothing but hearsay and can't be backed up. I don't think Wikipedia is here to publish libel (and/or slander).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.87.85 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

HEARSAY: I wish that non-lawyer laypeople would stop throwing that word around. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to show the truth of the matter asserted. The word is not synonymous with gossip. Hearsay as a general rule is sourced in that we know the declarant. The problem with hearsay is procedural in that the declarant cannot be cross-examined because that is the way truth is tested in the courtroom. Hearsay can sometimes be the best and most probative evidence. Finally, there are times that hearsay is admissible (for example: dying declarations, statements against interest, statements of then existing state of mind, etc.) I am a big EWTN fan. I watch it regularly. However, as an attorney, the misuse of the word hearsay to make it synonymous with gossip is a personal peeve of mine. I am sure that Deacon Bill (who is an attorney also) would agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhorn1993 (talk • contribs)

Please sign what you add here

Remember to sign after what you type in the talkpage. --Fantrl 01:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

To fantrl, I'm not registered into wikipedia, so I don't know what to sign in. Sorry.

To whomever put the POV tag on to the "Criticism" section, since I couldn't find any Criticism sources I changed the name of the section to "EWTN's views on non-Catholics" and there are references to what statements EWTN programs have made about non-Catholic groups. The section doesn't give any opinions, simply states what EWTN has stated, hence I can't see any breaches in neutrality. So, I would ask you to remove to POV tag. Thank you.

Cite your reasons why the "non-Catholic" section is POV or remove the POV.

It's pov because it shouldn't even be there.

Why not? It's relevant to the network.. it's POV to discuss something controversial about the article topic? Since when? CNN, Fox News, MTV and many other articles dealing with TV networks all have criticism or controversy sections... and anyway, this is no longer a criticism or controversy section, it just addresses EWTN's view of non-Catholics, and it gives references. No one's stopping you or anyone else from adding anything to the article pertaining to EWTN's views, activities, etc.

It plays no part in the article, those 'views' are views central to Catholosism, not simply this network

It's Catholicism, not Catholosism.. if those are the views of the network, and of Catholicism, why does it not belong in the article? Shouldn't the article be about information? This is clearly just a case of you not wanting anything seemingly negative about the network to be in the article, the section in question isn't violating neutrality, you just want this to be a whitewashed article.

EWTN's views on non-Catholics

Cite sources or use direct quotes which reference the programming by title and date.

I have never heard of the views of atheists which were attributed to Fr. Groeschel, nor the views which were attributed guests on The Journey Home. The views of the guests would not be relevant to the EWTN article in any case. The views of Marcus Grodi, host of The Journey Home on the other hand, might be. patsw 17:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I do cite my sources, and Marcus Grodi always agrees with his guests when they make those statements. Just because you have not seen Benedict Groeschel's Ten Commandment mini series doesn't mean it doesn't exist... I mean, are you serious? Thats the equivalent of me deleting the Simpsons article because I've never seen the show. Try watching it instead of removing sections from the article... they play the series quite often.

Anon, the Wikipedia policy is to cite sources so that we don't have to take your word for it that the views you say Groeschel has are accurate. I have seen the series and do not recall it as you do. The fact that Grodi doesn't raise objections with his guests on a point they make in the course of a show isn't explicit agreement with them. He makes his own views known in his own words.

Also, The format for a talk page is to indent replies and sign what you've written with four tildes. patsw 02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I left the source because it is in the series. Grodi has made it clear in his own words that he agrees with the assessments of many of his guests. Anon, 1:21, 23 August 2005

I created a new category called Controversies, and put the Views on non-Catholics as a subsection of that, and the following paragraphs as Conservative Viewpoint. I did that because only the first paragraph really dealt with other denominations, the rest was on their conservative stances on issues.
JesseG 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 205.188.117.74

Style

As a matter of style, EWTN is not a collective noun but a non-profit corporation, and therefore should be refered to as "it" rather than "they".

Roman

EWTN refers to itself as Global Catholic Television and Global Catholic Radio. The usage by EWTN to "Roman Catholic" is to specifically refer to the Roman (Latin) rite Catholic Church. I know elsewhere there's a particular emphasis on "Roman" but EWTN itself does not define itself as "Roman Catholic" but "Catholic".

Prior to many of its programs, as its daily mass, it does so state Latin-rite Catholic which is Roman rather than Greek-Orthodoxy.

Capitalization

There are many errors in terms capitalized which should not be and terms not capitalized which should be.

POV

EWTN doesn't refer to its Masses as Novus Ordo. In fact, this term is my recall of years of watching is never said on the air. Traditionalist Catholics generally are critical of EWTN because EWTN has avoided taking a position of giving air time to their views. Some POV and much subjective characterization here (and elsewhere):

EWTN has all along adhered to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church but initially they were very inclusive and ecumenical in attitude in their early years. In their programming they always leaned toward finding common ground with other Christians.

The habit of "The Nuns"

The Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration is the name of her order (PCPA). The material added to the article on her order contain errors too numerous to detail here.

I'm giving 205.188.117.74 an opportunity to edit. I'll be back and since there's a new book recently published on Mother Angelica and EWTN which I hope to have in my hands tomorrow I will adding information from there to this article. patsw 00:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Controversies" mean something specific

The word Controversies is not a Wikipedia shorthand for "stuff I don't like". To present a controversy, identify the two (or more) sides of the issue and what they advocate and source their statements. Generally, a negative opinion of something or someone held by some is not a controversy.

In the case of EWTN, there are critics who object to any religious programming, critics who object specifically to Catholic religious programming, critics who object to the programming choices EWTN has made. Then they are critics of the Catholic faith, who voice their criticism of the faith cloaked in objections to EWTN programming.

For there to be a meaningful section heading of "Controversies", controversies have a been presented in it.

I changed the section to EWTN's Views, because from what I could see only a few paragraphs actually deal with their views on non-Catholics. Most of the section appeared to deal more with EWTN's response to events within the church itself or the world at large.

JesseG 01:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a Controversies section citing specific references to conflicts which involved Mother Angelica, EWTN and the various bishops that she and the network has offended, as well as references to criticism of EWTN and Mother Angelica by other well-established Catholic media sources.DismasMama 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)DismasMama

I deleted a few sentences about the circumstances surrounding Archbishop Weakland's retirement/resignation because those details had absolutely nothing to do with his criticism of EWTN or Mother Angelica's response to the archbishop. Furthermore, those details about his resignation strike me as mostly an attempt to deflect Weakland's criticism of M. Angelica's views. They're a red herring, in other words, and have no place in an article about EWTN.

EWTN Views

I'm not sure how to fix the last paragraph of the EWTN Views section, but it does not come across very clearly. I'm going to ponder how best to express what was being there, but if someone else know better go for it. --Miked84 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack Of Criticism Section

I find this lack odd, seeing how I've had a few parish priests who absolutely detest EWTN and what they stand for. Essentially, their biggest problem is how they will use the mass to advertise a product they may be selling.

There has to be some form of criticism for this network, seeing as to some of what they preach directly goes against main-line Catholicism. --THollan 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lack Of Criticism Section

I put half of the paragrapf of the development of EWTN I put in the Opinion's and View's Section.

Added

I put Catholic Christian because in articles such as DayStar or TBN it says Christian, when these networks brodcast mostly Protestant programing. It's sounds like your saying Catholics aren't Christian when you say EWTN is a Catholic network and DayStar or TBN is a Christian network when they brodcast Protestant stuf.

Manual footnotes

Why does this article have manual footnotes instead of the standard automatic ones? If someone wants to add one, they have to re-number all those below it. That's not good. Plus the automatic ones include a link to the note. This should be changed. I don't have time to do it at the moment though. 207.203.80.14 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have converted the footnotes and in-line reference links to standard automatic footnote numbering; also gave clickable titles to untitled external links. Any new references should follow along. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Influence of Opus Dei and of Mammon

A brief look at the station's programming shows how heavily influenced it is by Opus Dei. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the main article. Aslo, like all tele-evangelists, Mother Angelica has chosen to put Mammon above God, at least in the physical layout of her website, with an appeal for cash at the top of the main page.Wmck 09:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia policy it would be best to summarize observations made in print by someone else we can cite rather than to attach judgments to our own observations. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:No original research. --Dystopos 12:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Precept of the Church: The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2041-2043 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.67.37 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Foley

The paragraph about Bishop Foley not allowing anyone in the diocese of Birmingham from using the pre-1970 form of the Mass with the priest facing the same direction as the congregation states the network complied with the bishop, even though the Vatican issued a decree allowing the form worldwide. That's a bit of a misrepresentation, as Bishop Foley's instruction came in 1999, and the Vatican's loosening up of the pre-1970 Mass was issued in 2007, before which, using a pre-1970 form required the consent of the local bishop, and therefor Bishop Foley was well within his authority. I've tagged the sentence as needing a citation, as it is possible I'm wrong. Gentgeen (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand the source of confusion: Bishop Foley's instruction forbade celebration ad orientem of Mass according to Paul VI's missal, which is what EWTN had been doing. This was not the missal from which restrictions were removed by Summorum Pontificum --- that was John XXIII's missal. Saying that ad orientem celebration in the new rite is permitted "by decree" is perhaps not the best way of phrasing matters, however: I'm not aware of any document specifically addressing the matter (corrections very welcome!); rather, the ancient practice was never prohibited, and some of the rubrics in the missal make no sense if it is not permitted. It might be of interest to note that the Holy Father himself recently offered Mass ad orientem according to the new missal.

I'll update the article accordingly. --Oogaland (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

A reasonable editor will note the instances of editorializing. One glaring example can be noted after citation 3 and 4: "This raises questions concerning possible conflicts between EWTN's Catholic representation and Republican interests". The facts should speak for themselves without commentary. It appears a good portion of this article is commentary and unverified statements rather than information relevant to an encyclopedia. The "News" and "History of Programming" are especially troublesome with respect to lack of proper citation and neutrality. I propose these sections be cleaned up immediately or deleted. RWalters1 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the revisions of editor 205.188.117.74 . The reasons are the following, regarding the Steubenville section:

• There is, I believe, little value in writing that the Steubenville University website has a link to an internship with the heritage foundation. This is clearly an attempt to link EWTN with openly conservative institutions, but it is, I believe, a degree of separation too much. Steubenville is quite famously (or infamously, depending on your point of view) conservative, but not every institution needs to be labeled according to its political ideology; this is only one facet among very many of its overall character, and only relevant if you are trying to prove a point about EWTN's ideological affiliations. This should not be the purpose of the article.
• Moreover, the roundtable discussion show is not mentioned in the programming list. It is either a past program or an occasional segment, neither of which seems important enough to include a whole paragraph about in an article of this length.
• Lastly, while I don't mean to question 205.188.117.74's integrity, "Don't vote Democrat" seems an unlikely statement to be made, and the assertion that it was made would indeed require a proper citation.
• Indeed, much of the article is not cited. This is unfortunate, but not really a pressing concern if it's not particularly controversial, either. The more controversial or negative a statement is, about any subject, the more essential a citation becomes.

Regarding the history section:

• "Widely abandoned" is a weasel word, and as such, should not be used (WP:WEASEL).
• "Prideful boasting" is a completely inappropriate phrase for a Wikipedia article.
• Moreover, I've seen plenty of Masses on EWTN, and while many women do wear head coverings (more than in the general population of Catholics), many also don't. There is certainly no rule or even norm that women must wear them.
• "In its early history, EWTN once ran a wide variety of..." is simply incorrect grammar; correct would be either "EWTN once ran..." or "In its early history, EWTN ran...". One or the other should be used, alone.
• If possible, "various" and "wide variety" should not be used in the same sentence, to avoid repetition.
• As for the rest of the edits in the following paragraph, as stated above, the more negative or controversial the statement, the more a citation is required. Claims such as "...the network made a point of fighting any and all trends it considered non-conservative..." "Programs featuring topics on social reform and justice were almost completely dropped..." "The network also began to reject the way Mass was being celebrated in many parishes..." are all distinctly negative in tone, and even if cited, could be written to be less confrontational, and more encyclopedic.

Such are the reasons for my revisions. No? Korossyl (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"fact" reverts

It appears an IP editor using several difference IP addresses keeps trying to reinsert edits from the past. I personally reverted the edit because based on my review the intended edits were extremely partial. Parts containing criticism were not only partial to one POV but were poorly written. Things like calling a particular member of the Church a "liberal theologian" without cites do not help in showing a NPOV. If the editor wants changes to stick they should separate out good faith edits from potentially contentious edits.Marauder40 (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also warned this person, in detail, at several IP addresses. He pops up every two weeks or so. --CliffC (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The user is claiming partisan policing, that is like calling the kettle black. The person is unwilling to discuss their changes on the talk page, come to a consensus or anything like that. Not only are they putting in their changes, they are blindly undoing other good edits that people have done without giving a reason.Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The particular set of edits being restored over and over again are the ones I argued against in the section above. Korossyl (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I just researched one of the resources because I questioned the fact that Pope JP II ever actually called the war unjust (yes he didn't agree with the war but as far as I know he never said it was unjust) and found out one of his resources is an opinion piece in a small newsletter put out by a charity. I doubt that qualifies as a valid reference for the words of a Pope. Marauder40 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He's already on shaky ground with the lead-in to that, "This contradicts Catholic views...", which, without a reference, sounds like original research or synthesis. Hey, anonymous editor, if you're reading this – you need to make one point and one edit at a time, and be able to explain it on the talk page. Your big collection of changes in one edit, especially when many of them are contentious, has no chance of surviving. --CliffC (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He keeps trying again. I noticed he must be reading this stuff because he keeps changing his references, of course he keeps changing them to opinion pieces, not articles that state actual words. As I said before, neither Pope JPII or B16 have said the war was unjust as what he keeps trying to add says. They did say other things about the war, but not that. Also can you explain to me how a reporter NOT asking someone a specific question is a contraversy.Marauder40 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to request semi-protection for the page. I can't figure out how to request semi-protection, and I messed it up last time I tried on another article.Korossyl (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again tonight, I just revert without comment now. In the past I've warned several of his IP personas with "I suggest taking a look at the article history (tab at the top of the page) to understand why your edits get reverted. Contentious material is best introduced a bit at a time and explained in an edit summary or on the talk page." Nobody's going to wade through that big lump of changes to see if there might be a nugget worth keeping this time. --CliffC (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said privately, this person's edits are so strange in their motivation. Why would a repeated edit, one done in such a way as it has been done in the past, be filled with possible bias that's slanted in both a "Pro" and "Con" direction.

SacredSpermWhale (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

SIGNIS and official status

There's been a lot of back and forth recently centered on EWTN's lisitng by SIGNIS. The intent of the claim was clearly to make a case for EWTN having some official status within the RCC, and to imply that its production enjoys oversight and approval by the Vatican. The claim does not seem to be sustainable, and the qualifications that have piled up around it have now really deformed the intro, and turned it into a sort of subsection. I'm clipping the mention back to undisputed essentials; maybe somebody wants to create a section on EWTN's status as an official church organization (though I predict that's going to be heavily contested). DavidOaks (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly this looks like Soidi and/or Nancy are taking their arguement from the Roman Catholic Church page to this page. EWTN has the oversight of their local Bishop, pure and simple. In the past the local Bishop has told EWTN to do different things and they have complied. They may be members of different organizations but in general they are monitored by the church via the normal church hierarchal structures. And I theorize that anytime EWTN may say something wrong or contraversial the local bishop gets an earful. Marauder40 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Marauder is quite right. There is no need to bring the question here or to keep it here. Soidi (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

-The question is clearly put-EWTN and SIGNIS/Official Rom. Cath. approval/status. The question has not been definitively answered. "I Theorize" Doesn't answer the question-only facts can>