Talk:Fulton J. Sheen

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

Vampire spamming[edit]

Would someone kindly remove the silly vampire references in this article?

Patton[edit]

Sheen was once defeated in a biblical knowledge competition by Gen. George S. Patton Jr. according to recent Patton biography, if memory serves.

That's interesting - but do you have an actual source?

Yoda921 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]

Views on Evolution & Racial Issues[edit]

The articl includes the following sentences:

"One of his first converts was writer Heywood Broun, who had been critical of Sheen's stance on evolution, but after countless discussions with the priest, changed his mind."

"That situation was compounded with his controversial stance on racial issues and his denunciation of the Vietnam War in August 1967."

The author(s) never informs us of what these "controversial" were.

Would someone please remove the homosexual references.

Trivia facts[edit]

  • Sheen often referred to his "angel", who would erase the blackboard when Sheen stepped away from it. This duty was performed by a never-seen stagehand.
  • "JMJ"--the initials Sheen wrote on the blackboard before using it on his television programs--stands for "Jesus, Mary, Joseph."

I removed these from the page for two reasons, firstly that they should be merged into the larger article, and secondly because I have absolutely no idea how these two sentences are related to the article. Nowhere else does it refer to a blackboard, so I'm confused. Can someone please figure out how these two sentences are related to the article and improve the quality of this article by integrating them in an appropriate place?

Martin Sheen name source[edit]

"Sheen adopted his stage name in honor of Catholic archbishop and theologian Fulton J. Sheen. Sheen lived on Brown Street in the South Park neighborhood, and was one of 10 siblings (9 boys and one girl). He attended Chaminade High School (now Chaminade-Julienne High School). He was raised as a Roman Catholic." <-- from the Martin Sheen article on Wikipedia. Shouldn't this info also be on the Fulton Sheen page, as trivia or something more significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.214.24.27 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's parish[edit]

Any ideas which St. Patrick's he was asked to pastor? There are something like twenty in the Peoria diocese. /blahedo (t) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction![edit]

How many books did he write--90 or 73? Dynzmoar (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would depend on how to define books. Some short works can be classified as books or pamphlets. I also doubt there is any publication than has counted his published books. Pending a new citable source becoming available, I'm going to edit the article to say more than 70 books. Dgf32 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second though, the 73 number appears multiple places in the article. I'm going to change the one 90 to 73. If anyone can find a source with an exact count, please update the article. Dgf32 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth[edit]

The article says "His youthful appearance was still evident on one occasion when a local priest who was unable to celebrate Mass asked Sheen to substitute for him." Why does this show he looked young? --Shanedidona (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that when he came to the sacristy to prepare for Mass, the pastor saw him and thought he was one of the altar boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.101.199 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Televangelist[edit]

An editor has added the category and description "televangelist" in good faith. However, this applies to people who spend the majority of their time on tv. Sheen was a lecturer and bishop and did not spend most of his time on television. The term is also used derisively by the media (according to Wikipedia article) because the televangelist asks for money to finance his continuing mission and (by the way) lifestyle. Sheen was unique in televising with no intent of raising money per se. It was a popular US program at the time. I don't know who sponsored it, but it certainly wasn't viewers since it was on one of the three networks!

The term and job, "televangelist" came later. Kind of like categorizing "Acta Diurna" as "An Italian newspaper"!  :) (it is under "jouralism, by golly!). Student7 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I can’t say what TMRC's intention was when he added the tag, I can’t get inside his or her head. But may I respectfully make the following points:
Now the definition, per Wiki, for televangelism is as follows; “the use of television to communicate the Christian faith”. The definition for a televangelist is “a Christian minister who devotes a large portion of his or her ministry to television broadcasting”. Contrary to what has been said, it is not applied only to those who spent most of their time on television.
Bishop Sheen, may he rest in peace, is unquestionably best known from his television ministry. Yes he was an American Roman Catholic bishop and he was a published author. But if not for his two television programs in the 1950’s and 1960’s, would he have been named one of the most influential American Catholics in history? Would he even have a wiki page?
Sheen preached the Gospel of Christ, on television, for the better part of 20 years. The fact that he did other things seems largely irrelevant; it does not make him any less of a televangelist. Televangelists do lots of things besides preach on television.
The fact that the term itself was coined after his ministry is also seemingly largely irrelevant. The televangelism page has Christian ministers from the 1920’s who only appeared on radio broadcasts. And Sheen had a radio ministry for 20 years before he ever appeared on television. (That's 40 years right there, between both television and radio!)
The fact that many televangelists ask for money and Sheen never did is very worthy to note. It makes Sheen better! But I am still not sure that the fact makes him any less of a televangelist. (And just for the heck of it, I’ll note that the first of Sheen’s two shows was on one of the four networks. No, not the WB, the long defunct DuPont network.)
I do have a feeling that the major reason for the objection to the label in question comes from the fact that there any many shady ministers in televangelism today and the other objections are created around that. However, in my opinion, I do not think that the lesser of any category should complete define the category itself.12.65.168.11 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheen was sponsored by a nationally-known firm on regular television, on of the only three channels available at the time. If he didn't get the audience, he would be off the air, like anyone else at the time. Real televangelists are forced to ask for money in order to support their timeslot. They buy that timeslot themselves. That is the essential difference. America tuned in voluntarily to his show each week in droves! No one was made to feel guilty because he wasn't supporting the show.
In other words, his presentations (still shown and can be purchased) were entertaining. It wasn't self-serving.
Would you call the talking heads on EWTN "televangelists" just because they talk about religion on television? Nobody's going to send money into them!  :)
There needs to be some kind of line between people who talk about religion on television in a normal tone of voice and televangelists. Not everyone who appears on television and talks about religion is automatically a "televangelist"! Student7 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was Sheen a televangelist? He certainly does not fit the stereotype we have of modern televangelists and he doesnt request donations but he was in fact preaching on television- At base level this is what televangelists do?. Needing to be supported by viewers donations is not a necessary component of Televangelism. As for the Talking Heads point. One can discuss religion, one can teach religion BUT one can also preach religion. Which is what Sheen did. He wasn't there discussing or explaining Catholic Theology but rather expounding on the value of that theology and imploring people to follow it. This is preaching, preaching on TV is televangelism surely? Even if it doesn't include big stages, healing and fancy three piece suited ministers shouting down microphones. Gavin (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation[edit]

The foundation that has been mentioned is not notable. One of the people associated with it is also WP:NN. This info does not seem important to this article. Other people have sainthood causes, the mechanics of which are unknown and similarly uninteresting. I don't see that this makes a difference. Nor, apparently, do other editors, which is why the foundation is nn. Student7 (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why must a nn foundation be noted? It isn't for any other would-be saint? It isn't for Mother Teresa nor for Pope John Paul II. Why Fulton Sheen? Student7 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must an article name a nn foundation and a nn person who started it, when discussing the beatification process? Student7 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Ladd[who?] or the foundation itself need mention. O'Conner is of course notable but it is not clear from the text if his involvement rises to the level of being mentioned on this page. Boldness is our friend... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing context related to the foundation is wrong. Let me point out a few things:

  • Every cause for sainthood (i.e beatification and canonization) is significant once it receives the approval of the bishop.
  • Every cause for sainthood (in the United States) forms a non-profit corporation affiliated to the Catholic Church for the purpose of the fund-raising and expenses associated with the promotion of the cause.
  • The specific foundation for this subject's article is recognized by the Church and is active.

Inclusion of content in an article, is not subject, in any case, to notability which refers to the creation of the individual article and its merit for the Wikipedia. The foundation content in the Sheen article is subject to about eight content policies and none of them justify the indicated deletion. Since this is such an obvious misapplication of WP:NN, the content is restored. patsw (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Foudation is not notable enough to warrant its own article, however it certainly is relevant to the legacy of this notable figure and therefore it is right that it be put into the article. It has to be or else an important fact is omitted from the account of Fulton J. Sheen. Gavin (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, no one has made the suggestion that the foundation would merit its own article. patsw (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We now have another plug for the foundation. Someone who appears to be connected with it appears to be inserting these edits and vigorously defending them against all comers. You won't see WP:SPAM like this in others religious figures bios. Student7 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

On top of the infobox:

"The Most Reverend
Venerable "

why not "his greatness, holy, luminescent and beloved" as well?

Wikipedia, where has your neutrality gone? --MathsPoetry (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is very off-putting, and is possibly done for that reason. Student7 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those titles could be used if they were his official titles in some circles. The ones given are his formal titles as used in the Catholic Church, which in his case would be the relevant authority. You can find explanations for them through the links given. Per the MOS, the infobox can include information such as this. Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Reverend is one of the titles of a Catholic bishop. Venerable is the lowest stage (or rank) of someone going through the process of canonization. As such they are proper titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.52.77 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic[edit]

The references and links to "Roman Catholic X" in this article are valid and useful. In fact Wowaconia (talk · contribs) is breaking links and turning them red with his reverts. The problem is that we have a vandal or two who determinedly try to excise "Roman Catholic" from Wikipedia and we have to regularly clean up after they've broken links, categories, etc. Please see user:Drmies/Roman Catholic? Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I am not the original editor that pointed out that the Catholic Church does not use the name Roman Catholic in its self-description.

I would point out that this fact can be easily seen in their documents such as Catechism of the Catholic Church you will note that they do not call it "of the Roman Catholic Church".

There is no Wikipedia article for Roman Catholic, so you are merely linking to a redirect page that takes you to Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Catholic Church because their claim is that as the word Catholic actually means Universal that they are the Universal Church - the Church Jesus established to spread throughout the whole world and not just Rome.

Further the papacy has not always been located at Rome but the Pope has never been held to not be the head of the Catholic Church nor do we refer to the times when he was not at Rome that he was the head of the "Avignon Catholic Church".

So if you wish to declare that the Catholic Church is wrongly named please reach consensus on the Wikipedia article Catholic Church.

Your claim that "Roman Catholic X" is "valid is and useful" is not supported by any argument but your personal preference which is at odds with that of the established practice of naming used by Catholicism. --Wowaconia (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the redirect page for Roman Catholic: Roman Catholic.
You will see that it merely re-directs to Catholic Church and not the other way around as Elizium23 maintains in the edit history.
Wowaconia (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by Elizium23's claim that I am "breaking links and turning them red with his reverts" no links are broken either in my actions or his actions in reverting mine. So his motivation for asserting this against me appears highly questionable. Also it seems outside of Wikipedia etiquette to throw my name out right away rather than to begin with addressing the concern to editors in general or just presenting the counter position here without reference to anyone. His threats to remove my editing privileges on my personal talk page also seem a bit behind the norm - the three revert rule was not broken, so I don't see why things couldn't remain more civil. Strikes me as bad form all around. --Wowaconia (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What colors do you see?

Tom Harrison Talk 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, its good to know there was an actual reason and not malice. As I stated I was not the one who first changed Roman Catholic to Catholic. It would certainly make sense to only allow the changes that link to Catholic Church and keep the ones like you linked but this was not done, rather all instance of Catholic were reverted to Roman Catholic, rather than just the ones that broke links. --Wowaconia (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the situation should be resolved, I have left any links to Roman Catholic Diocese as such and only changed references to the faith itself as Catholic Church. Thanks again to Tom Harrison for pointing out the communication disconnect. Sorry for the difficulty.--Wowaconia (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not resolved. Sheen is Roman Catholic, that is, a Catholic member of the Latin Church. Please read and understand Roman Catholic (term) for how this works. Your latest edit has once again left out important information that used to be conveyed by the words "Roman Catholic". I frankly don't understand why you are taking up the cause of a Long-Term Abuse vandal, and why only on this one single article, why aren't you out there "fixing" the thousands of redirects and not just this one? Anyway, there is plenty of support baked in to Wikipedia for use of the term "Roman Catholic" and this is obvious from just a cursory survey of categories and article names. For example, every single arch/diocese in the world is "Roman Catholic Diocese of X". Elizium23 (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I guess I had never considered what Catholics called themselves. After the person who changed it here put it up, my first impulse was just to revert it - but I thought I should investigate that editors position rather than just reflexive impose my own without rationale.

When I was reverting your edit I mistakenly just looked at the beginning of the article where it spoke of Sheen as a member of a faith Catholic or alternatively Roman Catholic - I did not understand that the previous editor had broken other links and so was confused why it was being switched back, sorry about that.

I think that as Catholics not only call themselves Catholics but as in common usage when you say Catholic in regard to faith everyone identifies it as the Church headed by the Pope, that it would make sense to change all usages in Wikipedia.

Even in America they don't call themselves the United States Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops but merely the the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Even Protestant ministers convinced Catholicism is evil refer to members of that faith as being in the Catholic Church more than they call it Roman Catholic. So I think the naming convention of Catholic rather than Roman Catholic makes sense.

As the link from Roman Catholic is merely a redirect to Catholic Church and users are not brought to Roman Catholic (term), I don't understand why you think that has relevance concerning the names.

If you think a wiki-project should be started to fix "the thousands of redirects" sign me up. I will support that both in voting for it to gain a consensus for the go ahead and should it pass by assisting in changing the errors. It is also possible that some uses of Roman Catholic derive from points of law rather than points of faith - so if the city of Rochester calls this Catholic grouping a Roman Catholic diocese for purposes of 501c tax exemption, an argument might be made that this is a legal name and the legal name carries weight. As I have said I only started to reflect on the issue when the previous editor made their changes.

If you feel that it does not make sense to call Sheen a Catholic but rather you want to emphasize that he performed the Latin liturgical rites and was a member of the Latin Church there is indeed a page for that and you could ask for consensus to stop calling him a member of the Catholic Church and start calling him a member of the Latin Church. I don't think that makes sense, but perhaps you could gain consensus for such a move. --Wowaconia (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the subject one finds that Catholic leaders hold that the term "Roman Catholic" originated as a slander of their faith by Protestant Anglicans. Such as this piece from the Catholic broadcasting network EWTN: https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
If one puts in the derogative term Moonies one is redirected to Unification Church of the United States. While at the same time there is a page explaining the history of the term at Moonie (nickname). So this seems to be standard Wikipedia practice with the same pattern being used for terms used in a similar way about the Catholic Church and Roman Catholic (term).
Wowaconia (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)--[reply]

Fallout with Cardinal Spellman[edit]

According to the article, Spellman got even with Sheen by canceling the latter's Good Friday sermons at St. Patrick's Cathedral. Spellman was Archbishop of Boston. St. Patrick's is in New York City. How did Spellman acquire authority over the sermon schedule at some other Archbishop's cathedral?John Paul Parks (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Spellman "Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967, having previously served as an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Boston (1932–39)"? (quoted from the lead of the article on Francis Spellman). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Spellman was Archbishop of New York. My previous post was in error. Yet, the story seems suspicious. If Spellman was Archbishop of New York and Sheen was an Auxiliary Bishop of New York, why would the intervention of the Pope be needed to resolve a dispute about the disposition of packets of dried milk? The phrase "itchy fingers of his own cardinal" raises concern as well. A cardinal is part of a group that advises the pope on church matters, and who does not, merely because he is a cardinal, have any supervisory authority over anyone else. If Spellman had supervisory authority over Sheen, it would be in his role as Archbishop of New York, and not as cardinal.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section "Fallout with Cardinal Spellman" is a verbatim lift of Arroyo's foreword (pp. xi–xvi) to Sheen's Treasure in Clay. So it's well sourced, although based on a single source which might be considered biased. The verbatim quotations also raise WP:COPYVIO concerns, and I agree that the paragraph has a whiff of WP:UNDUE about it, unless more independent & reliable sources can be found on the subject. Rephrasing and culling that section is called for. My interest in this article is very marginal (I just wanted to mention the Bleecker Street Sheen Center here), so I'm not going to work any further on this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations from Arroyo are clearly credited and are not even an entire paragraph - questions of copyright seem overwrought here. Arroyo is quoted directly here as the charges against Spellman are grave and it must be clear who is putting forward the claim and what authority that person has on the topic. The charge of Undue is also overwrought as Arroyo is an extremely notable spokesperson for Catholics in America and has written multiple books on current Catholic history, and the mystery of why Sheen left television at the height of his popularity is an important topic for understanding Sheen the focus of the article.-Wowaconia (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous bishop post out of order?[edit]

In the Infobox, shouldn't his previous episcopacy immediately follow his ultimate one, rather than being relegated to an oddball spot way down the page? That after all was the position he held when he became famous, and when he became famous as a bishop. I mean, I'm a Baptist from Seattle, but I had heard of "Bishop Sheen" prior to 1966. --Haruo (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. Done. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fulton J. Sheen. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fulton J. Sheen. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle approved[edit]

This morning a miracle was approved and attributed to Fulton Sheen. This is a necessary step on the way to his beatification.--Dcheney (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright cleanup[edit]

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. -- 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-ritual[edit]

https://www.nytimes.com/1956/06/18/archives/byzantine-mass-offered-by-sheen-bishop-with-papal-sanction.html

https://forums.catholic.com/t/why-is-abp-fulton-sheen-vested-as-an-eastern-rite-bishop-in-this-picture/305372/5

Can a better editor add this fact in somewhere appropriate AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good info, thanks. I found a few more snippets on the topic (mostly secondhand) at ByzCath.org:
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/342701/2
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/184792/
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/62927/
The info seems notable in the context of Sheen's overall efforts seeking common ground with Christians from non-Roman churches, unusual for the 1950s & 1960s. I just added a short paragraph summarizing these Ecumenical efforts. Further improvements welcome. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concise infobox[edit]

I have reduced some of the wording in the infobox. These fields get about 3 inches on my full-screened browser, and the infobox is designed for conveying "at-a-glance" current information, so it helps to get quickly to the point in a few words. Elizium23 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Honorifics[edit]

Please be aware that the honorific prefixes in the infobox and used throughout this page are the official honorific titles used by the Catholic Church. Regardless of your opinions of the subject, these are the titles that were bestowed to him by the organization that he represents. This is not biased language, and should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterAziz (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fulton_J._Sheen&oldid=1211943464"