Talk:Raymond Arroyo

Untitled

Note to 207.246.87.219 = Even if this is an election year in your country, I think it somewhat small to ANONYMOUSLY convert a Wikipaedia page about a Religious TV Host into a political rant about some foundation that nobody has heard of. Get a grip, grow a backbone and identify yourself and go vandalize some other topic. Looking at your history, it's not the first time you have done this. Droog57 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to above note: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.87.219 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1) All facts stated in this article can be established by the references cited or by EWTN programming itself. The statement of facts in an encyclopedic venue is not "vandalism" or "a political rant."

2) Stating that no one has ever heard of the Heritage Foundation is an untrue distraction. Both major media and smaller outlets have cited the Heritage Foundation and it's work. It's relationship to goverment administrations and it's positions are well established.

3) The reference to an election year is an irrelevant distraction as Arroyo has interviewed and worked with Republican figures on EWTN since it's beginnings in the eighties.

4) The deletion of established, cited, facts in an encyclopedic venue is dubious, exasperating, and innapropriate.

5) Unobjective insult comments such as "get a grip" or "grow a backbone" are innapropriate. Our objective here is to get all the accurate facts and at the present time, the range of facts for the Arroyo entry is being expanded. That doesn't mean we are always going to be happy with the facts we find.

6) Attempting to bait someone into identifying themselves by insulting them is an old trick.It betrays a foreboding and ulterior motive as to why you are trying to get to their identity in the first place. Whoever you are- I'm not taking the bait!

Heritage Foundation and original research

I have removed the "controversy" section. It appears to be an original synthesis which makes assertions that go beyond the sources used, which is in violation both of Wipedia's policy on original research and of the policy on sourcing contentious information about living people. It should not be re-added to the article without proper sourcing. --77.96.133.241 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arroyo contacts with Republican party figures are established fact, not original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.4.222 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intimations about a think tank's influence on Arroyo's work as a broadcaster is most certainly an original synthesis. Sorry, but your personal theories have no place on Wikipedia. --212.32.75.219 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

edit cites Arroyo's consistent contact w/ Republican figures, Heritage is only one of them, contacts are facts, will clean up edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.4.222 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You need a source that says there is a Republican influence on Arroyo's work. You need a source that says there is any actual controversy. You haven't cited anything close to that. Again, what you're doing is introducing an original synthesis from what few sources you do cite. Wikipedia is not a venue for your unpublished theories. --212.32.75.219 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there has to be a valid reason for dumping all this stuff in the article in the first place. Why should there be a listing of Republicans Arroyo has interviewed? Why is it important to highlight the Heritage Foundation? Where are the secondary sources to say that this section isn't a violation of WP:NPOV? Honestly, if your interests are in writing about Iraq, then find an appropriate article -- this isn't it. --212.32.75.219 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interests in providing all facts/details about arroyo entry. Your bothered reaction to facts is NPOV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.188.252 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, a NPOV issue is when an edit introduces so much material to an article that the emphasis is skewed. Why are you trying to turn a bio on a broadcaster into a conspiracy theory about political control of television in regards to Iraq? --212.32.75.219 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.87.219 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This controversy section is clearly POV, with someone obsessed with talking about the Iraq war...clearly out of balance with anything else in this article. And the Huffington Post is hardly a reputable source for an encyclopedia, it's a blog with a particular political leaning, discussion site, and editorial repository. This article is in need of massive cleanup, by people publishing with real accounts, not hiding behind IP addresses. Sigil7 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just requested semi-protection on this and the EWTN page. Marauder40 (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrites all! The only source for any of the material on this page is from Raymond Arroyo's own Web site. "Hardly a reputable source for an encyclopedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.62.6 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor that constantly tries to insert the Heritage Foundation material that is discussed in this section is back. The information is WP:POV and WP:OR. This has been discussed with the editor several times both in here and on various anonymous IP account user pages. I have reported them to 3rr vandalism page again. Marauder40 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of sneaker comments

Not everybody is convinced that including the "sneaker comments" is valid, the most expansive edit summary being "Deleted due to content that is defamatory/inaccurate/out of context". [1] I can't see how it is inaccurate, or what context is lacking. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the sources used is considered reliable; therefore the user who removed it is allowed to violate 3RR to do so under WP:3RRNO since it concerns controversial material about a living person. I was surprised to not see this here ... it's been widely reported; it should be easy to find it in a reliable source. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I see Newsweek is considered somewhat unreliable. I don't know about the other one (MediaITE). Through third-party reporting, I saw both Arroyo's statement, and the commentary on The View, so both those things are a fact (which doesn't negate the requirement for a reliable source). I have trouble supporting its inclusion because it seems to carry undue weight considering the total amount of content in the article, with perhaps a touch of recentism. Personally: the statements at issue are the only time I've ever encountered Arroyo, and considering the venue (Fox) and his statements, I struggle to believe that these are the only naive/ignorant things he's said. There must be dozens of them. If anything about this controversial aspect of Arroyo is to be included, I'd rather see a broader treatment by a reliable secondary source commenting on it; not just this one thing. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just added more reliable sources to the article. In context using Mediaite as a source for what The View said seems, well, tolerable here although WP:RS/PS has it as sort of undecided. I have added a USA Today article and a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (yea Gannett! A onetime employer of mine!) column.

I guess the weight problem is ... we've had this perfunctory article about Arroyo for a while since he's primarily an EWTN personality and gets what exposure he gets outside that (not a channel everyone watches; certainly not outside conservative Catholics) through Laura Ingraham's Fox show. Only now did he say something controversial enough to make the news ... I'd never heard of him before this. Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Arlington0804 please read this discussion and kindly consider rethinking your most recent revert. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - :@That Coptic Guy, Willondon, Philipnelson99, ThaddeusSholto, Radiohist, and Mlkj: please see the above comment by Daniel Case as well as my comment at ANEW. This material being added is poorly sourced contentious material on a BLP, which falls squarely into WP:3RRNO #7. BLP articles are held to a higher standard because they directly affect living people, and the content being added seems to fall short of what is expected from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. - Aoidh (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Aoidh. My revert was based on other reverts and I should have been more observant before reverting, I acknowledged my mistake over at WP:AIV when the associated report was declined. @Daniel Case I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to add reliable sources to this article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks as well @Aoidh - still learning here! I had a hunch that the constant reverts didn't exactly fall under the purview of AIV and there was a little more than meets the eye in this case. Will familiarize myself with the exceptions to 3RR. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what context or neutrality is missing now. It's a cited opinion of a reliable source, and the only possible issue could be due weight, which can be solved by adding a contrary opinion, rather than removal (given that there's only 1 opinion). JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)