Talk:Benedict Groeschel

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

Citing Facebook

The citations of the social media of persons or groups about their own activity falls within the wikipedia standards covered under

WP:SOCIALMEDIA
. If you believe that the quotations cited are not within this framework and should be deleted please indicate which standards you hold are being overlooked rather than make the claim "Facebook is not allowed". --Wowaconia (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled

The EWTN program has been retitled Sunday Night Prime as they are moving away from live call in questions and comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.10 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent NCR article I just reverted the recent changes related to the controversial statements in the NCR article. The article itself has been replaced with a statement from the editor that talks about the fact that the article wasn't properly reviewed before posting. Due to BLP and recentism implications I think we need to let this work itself before jumping on the issue. From the current posting on the NCR page:

"Child sexual abuse is never excusable. The editors of the National Catholic Register apologize for publishing without clarification or challenge Father Benedict Groeschel's comments that seem to suggest that the child is somehow responsible for abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our publication of that comment was an editorial mistake, for which we sincerely apologize. Given Father Benedict's stellar history over many years, we released his interview without our usual screening and oversight. We have removed the story. We have sought clarification from Father Benedict."

In effect this is a news organization putting out breaking news and then retracting it. Due to BLP implications this should work itself out before appearing in the article, especially since the original source has been pulled. Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think avoiding recentism and BLP create a little leeway for holding off a little while perhaps, however the fact that National Catholic Register pulled the article on its website should not have any bearing. The article is still physically out there in print and quoted by numerous reliable sources.Tjc (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the leeway is all I was talking about. Since the original source says they made a mistake in the original posting we need time to see what the mistake was. If the mistake was that the quotes were wrong, totally taken out of context, etc. Then it is similar to any other news story where the original news story was totally wrong and retracted. If those were his actual quotes, not taken out of context, and just needed clarification then they can go back in. Since WP is not the news we can give things a little leeway to determine what develops.Marauder40 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either he did or he did not say it. Oddly I was about to point everyone to this article. [1] BUt it is now "Expired," whatever that may mean. We ought to be quite careful, but this will not go away. All in all, I think I may refrain from editing this for a few hours to let things settle out. We need not be in any hurry. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HuffPo seems to have a balanced article. Defenders are now saying the man is senile. [2] Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone is senile, without proof would be a BLP violation. Just using these comments as trying to say he is senile would be OR. Still need to let things develop. Need to make sure the person that is actually saying he may be senile is someone who has that authority.Marauder40 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a problem with the original quote that is listed in the article. The quote that is given is quotes is not a quote from him but a quote from the news article. The only word that is a direct quote is the first word. Right now it sounds like the entire quote came directly from him.Marauder40 (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I was not out of line saying he seems senile here on the talk page, I am no authority and am giving my impression of what is happening. I still like my version with the block quotes. Let the man speak for himself I say. Further, a section on this after the accident/brain injury section might provide context. In any case, I still propose to let it rest for a day or so more. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No you were not out of line, several people are thinking that. Adding it to the article itself without a person that would have valid knowledge saying it would be a BLP. Even if the Bishop says something like "I think he is a senile old man" wouldn't warrant putting it into the article because it would just be his opinion. If Father's Order comes out and says it or he says it himself that is another thing. I think the current quote can be replaced with one or two of your previous quotes, with proper citing, it doesn't have to be using the formal grey boxing or even blockquote. I don't think the current quote that isn't really a quote from him but a quote from an article should be left in. I will leave it up to you.Marauder40 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fear we are talking like those two chipmunks (after you, no after you, I insist...) I will fix it tomorrow about this time if nobody gets around to doing a better job. I do think the interview belongs after the accident paragraph. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny ;) Not sure how it should go in after the accident section. I don't think in the scheme of things this warrants its own section. WP doesn't like crit sections either. We have to be careful about what we use, right now several of the news stories are taking things way out of context, his exact wording should be used, but with proper weight. I personally understand what he was saying but his exact wording and how he said it was wrong. Many people are saying that he said a first time offender should get off, he didn't say that, he basically said (poorly) that he felt a first time offended when sex itself wasn't involved shouldn't go to jail. There is a big difference. I am not agreeing with him, just that many news articles are taking his comments totally out of context. Some articles act like he is defending Sandusky, it is clear in context he wasn't, he was using Sandusky as an extreme example of a repeat offender. Marauder40 (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the problem quote, and put in a TEMPORARY solution to the BLP issue. We should let things wait at least a day to see how things settle out for
WP:BLP issues.Marauder40 (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The way I see it is a timeline of his life. He was born, became a mono, did this that and so on, then an accident then this interview. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)'[reply]
I think the current treatment of the incident is better than it was a day or two ago. Back then, it had a pro-Groeschel POV. I agree with Marauder that it was right to remove one quote that came an article covering the controversy because it may give readers the impression that it was direct quote from Groeschel. But then we had the probably of only including a quote trying to spin things in his favor. It's not a balanced state of affairs to quote the apology verbatim but omit any of the quotes that started the controversy. People need to know what he was apologizing for. I also want to address a couple issues. The BLP policy doesn't mean we shield notable individuals from having their views seen publicly when many people might view those views as offensive. There is reliable sourcing for Groeschel's remarks. The apologies essentially concede that he made them. Second, the "retraction" isn't grounds to arguing a violation of BPL. NCR stated rationale for retracting the article does NOT involve allegation that Groeschel. Rather, it was that they shouldn't have published an article that let Groeschel remarks on child molestation go unchallenged by contrary. So in fact, the statement regarding retraction is yet another piece bolstering inclusion of the remarks. --JamesAM (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy with this at the moment. I find it to not give enough attention to the comments that have certainly ended this man's career. If history remembers him for anything, it will be for his recent comments. That being said, I intend to wait some more before editing. I see no reason NOT to wait and let the dust settle. In other news, I am happy to report a clergyman has contact me on my private e-mail about this page and asked me to explain how to edit. I gave him some instructions. When a new editor appears, I know we will all welcome him. He seems to be someone who can add to the discussion. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly important that we have something of the substance of what he said that caused this kerfuffle. Otherwise his apology is for something generic and obscure, even if we specify the subject matter as "child abuse". A recent addition seems to acoomplish this with the most egregious quote. Sad but true.

talk) 16:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I am very pleased with Bmclaughin's most recent edits. They give the recent career-ending comments their due and nothing more. I was going to edit this on (my, Saudi) weekend, but now am completely happy with this. (I may still move the car accident section so it is in timeline order.) Good Job! Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posts

The infobox has this:

  • Previous post: Order of Friars Minor Capuchin
  • Present post: Franciscan Friars of the Renewal

But those are affiliations/memberships, not posts, no? Shouldn't these be the position(s) he now holds. I realize he has several (seminary teacher, tv host), but isn't that what the infobox is meant for?

talk) 16:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Removal of material from EWTN site

On Sept. 20, 2012 a user added this:

EWTN's large library of audio and video featuring Fr. Benedict Groeschel has been purged.
Citing this bad link: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/selectseries.asp/ Network Washes its Hands & Groeschel Vanishes

But we have nothing in the entry that tells us that a collection of BG's material ever appeared there or appeared there recently. And we have no source that says such materials have been removed. Posting a bad URL and claiming that it once displayed something and no longer does is about as poor as sourcing gets. The assertion may be true, but we need a source for it.

talk) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benedict Groeschel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 09:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benedict Groeschel. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Benedict Groeschel. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benedict_Groeschel&oldid=1207462101"