Talk:Eternal Word Television Network/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 29 May 2005

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 (talkcontribs)

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 paragraph of the development of EWTN I put in the Opinions and Views Section.

Added

I put Catholic Christian because in articles such as DayStar or TBN it says Christian, when these networks broadcast mostly Protestant programming. 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 broadcast Protestant stuff.

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)

"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)

Well, this morning he's at the Scranton Public Library; let's hope the librarian there dishes out computer access in 30-minute chunks. I'm starting to think this is a phase-of-the-moon thing. --CliffC (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just requested semi-protection on this page and the Raymond Arroyo page. Marauder40 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact revert editor is back again. I have reported the IP address to the 3rr vandalism group. As usual the edits undo several good edits from editors that have happened since the last time this editor was blocked and/or attempted their changes. The edits also contain POV material link the Heritage Foundation to EWTN using WP:OR. Marauder40 (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant?

The following item was deleted without explanation, then quite correctly restored, but I think we should discuss its relevance; if the person in question had duties in connection with children, it would certainly be significant, but does this matter any more than the post-release employment history of any sex offender anywhere, or is it just negativity included on the warrant that it happens to have been printed? DavidOaks (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Later in 2006 it was revealed that a priest on EWTN's staff was found to be a child abuser in 1995, but had remained on the staff until 2002, although his duties were restricted.Citation: Catholic TV ministry had abuser on staff, Deseret News, April 29, 2006. Retrieved 2010-06-18

I came across this report while seeking citations for another article. It seemed significant so I added it here. Happy to submit to consensus on whether it is significant enough to be retained here. I don't have an agenda of negativity on the subject; I was actually working to save a similar article at the time, although it had to be deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's let people weigh in. I apologize if it sounded like I was attributing motive. DavidOaks (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Evidence?

The second to last paragraph in the "Criticisms and Controversy" has several questionable sentences:

"This book, though, makes innacurate statements such as EWTN being strictly pre Vatican 2. It also makes statements that EWTN advocated positions it never did. EWTN has never advocated a pre Vatican 2 traditionalist attitude. They have always been in union with Rome and are Novus Ordo, always have been [sic]."

These sentences are poorly written, and, more importantly, do not contain viable content. Sentences 1 and 2 must be cited, since they definitively say that a publication (in this case, a book) contains factual errors. Since the book is disputing whether EWTN has been strictly pre Vatican 2, there is obviously some ambiguity in how EWTN is seen; and since the ambiguity arises from two different viewpoints (the viewpoint of the book and the viewpoint of the author of the Wikipedia article), each argument may not intrinsically and diametrically be wrong or right. Of course, the opposite could be true, but citations are needed to conclusively support one viewpoint over another. In any event, I recommend that the first two sentences be cited or else removed. If they are not removed, something like, ETWN has disputed Ferrara's claims in stating that it neither advocates a traditionalist attitude, nor has done so in the past. A citation of EWTN's stance is needed, but I don't have time to find one now.

The last two sentences should not even be cited- they should be deleted entirely. First, and I would say foremost, the "almost have been" is a dramatic grammatical error. Second, the blanket statements relying on words like "never" and "always" are signals that there is probably bias against Ferrara; otherwise, these blanket statements must have very strong citations. Always being in union with Rome and Novus Ordo are very hard things to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.125.28 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

missing end

"Mother Angelica later issued a conditional, albeit reluctant, apology for her comments, which as " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usquam (talkcontribs) 13:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to contact User:GeorgeC about this. The last edit on this page, by him, caused this. Not sure what he wanted to do, whether it was a cut and paste error or he was purposely trying to change it.Marauder40 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Heresy

While reading this article, I was surprised by the statement, "Cardinal Mahony regarded her comments as heretical." Wanting to investigate that detail, I followed the link in the footnote, and the NCR article has the headline: "Mahony sees nun's critique as heresy charge". I changed it to refer to the comments as an accusation. Opusaug (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong news source

The network eventually complied with Bishop Foley's order.<reference>Msgr. Guido Marini, Papal Master of Ceremonies, quoted in Pope celebrates Mass ad orientem, speaks on Baptism, Catholic World News, January 14, 2008.</reference>

This reference has nothing to do with EWTN. Here's what the article says:

Pope celebrates Mass ad orientem, speaks on Baptism, January 14, 2008
Pope Benedict XVI baptized 13 infants, the children of Vatican employees, in keeping with a Vatican tradition on the feast of the Baptism of Christ.
The Holy Father used the ad orientem posture, facing in the same direction as the congregation, using the magnificent altar of the Sistine Chapel rather than portable altar that had been set up in previous years. This provoked widespread comment, with many journalists reporting that the Pope had revived an old liturgical tradition. (In fact, the ad orientem posture was never abolished.)
Msgr. Guido Marini, the new master of ceremonies for papal liturgies, said that the traditional posture was used to emphasize the "beauty and harmony of this architectural masterpiece," as it was originally designed for liturgical ceremonies. He noted in a public statement that in celebrating ad orientem, the Pope was not breaking with existing practice but "making use of a possibility contemplated by liturgical norms." Still the Pontiff's return to a traditional practice revived rumors that Pope Benedict will soon celebrate a public Mass using the "extraordinary form"-- the traditional Latin Mass.
The Pope baptized 8 girls and 5 boys at the January 13 ceremony. (One of the boys was named John Paul.) In his homily he reminded the parents and godparents that in Baptism the child enters "into a personal relationship with the Creator, and this lasts forever."
"It is for this reason that Christian parents bring their children to the baptismal font as soon as possible," the Holy Father continued; "knowing that the life they have communicated to them invokes a fullness, a salvation, that only God can give." By having their children baptized promptly, he said, "the parents become God's collaborators, transmitting to their children not only physical but also spiritual life."
"Unfortunately," the Pontiff continued, "man is capable of extinguishing this new life through sin." For other animals, death means only the end of life, the Pope observed. But for humans "sin creates an abyss which risks swallowing us up forever." Christ went into that abyss himself, he said, to give mankind the opportunity to escape it.
Later on Sunday, at his midday Angelus audience, Pope Benedict reflected on the Baptism of Christ, noting that the event marked the beginning of Christ's public life. "By having Himself baptized by John together with sinners, Jesus began to take upon Himself the burden of sin of all humanity," he said.
The Pope continued: "The whole of Christ's mission may be summed up in this way: Baptism in the Holy Spirit to free us from the slavery of death and open us to heaven-- in other words ... to true and full life."

As such, I deleted the sentence from the article. If someone can find a proper reference for the information, please reinsert the sentence into the article with the proper reference. Oct13 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Papal medal disputed

It is very disingenuous to claim that "The network has merited Papal award" -- the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice was not awarded to EWTN as a network, it was awarded to Mother Angelica as an individual. This passage needs to be removed. It belongs only on the Wikipedia page for Mother Angelica herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.206.234 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. Oct13 (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)