Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Farley

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

Untitled

[edit]

Italic text

Title

[edit]

what should be the name of the article, do we include the "Sister" in the article title?00:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Just like Bill Clinton, not President. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No title. Just Margaret Farley. If you wish to enter "Sister Margaret Farley" in the body context, that is fine. Just like every other article. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other activities

[edit]

"She has also followed...". What exactly does 'followed' mean here? Needs clarification. Supadog (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. my thoughts as well. Liberal leftist bias. Thank you for your notices. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentence. It showed no bias at all. It just made no sense to tell us that Farley has "followed" a certain issue. And to say that without a citation that would allow us to track back to what that sentence might have meant. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Progressive Anti-Catholic Atheistic Bias

[edit]

Yup. Read it twice and I noted a very strong sense of Anti-Catholicism and bias in relation to Margaret Farley and her very controversial book on Christian sexuality. I hope someone will be brave enough to challenge the veracity of these details and correct them in accordance to a neutral, positive and un-biased way that caters to our mature readers.

Oh and just because one has a title of Professor Emerita in an accomplished university does not make one a theologian, much less than a doctor of the Church. Last I checked, only the pontiff can confer this honor. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any claim that she is a doctor of the church. Professor Emerita is nothing to do with the church but an honourary title given by the university. NtheP (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farley's book is not a proper book on genuine Catholic Catechism and bears no Imprimatur. Someone please re-write this article in a professional manner worthy of both sides to the issue. TY HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farley self-identifies as Catholic, and Wikipedia honors that. If notable people have commented upon Farley's liberalism and her sense of religion, those opinions can be brought to the article.
I note that you equate mature with conservative. That's a generality disproved by many, certainly everybody who signed the Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why will you not permit notable people who oppose Farley to be brought to this article? Do they not have the right to express their comments too, given their notability in the public square? Are they not also entitled to give commentary, given their notability to Farley's controversial morality and opposition to Roman Catholic teaching? Tolerance is both ways, not just for the leftist liberalist people with a progressive agenda. Liberalism is also disproved by many, especially by good well-meaning decent people who are brought up with conservative Christian values and are faithful to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic faith. Maybe Wikipedia should honor that as well. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is neutral, honoring WP:reliable sources. See also WP:BLP.
You have misidentified me as someone who keeps information out of this article. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find HeartyBowl's objections peculiar. The entry states the charges against her in detail as well as comments made in her defense. He seems to say someone called her a doctor of the church but no one has. Repeat no one. I think it's fair to call a professor of theology a theologian, retired or not. He also asks why someone unspecified ("you") does not "permit" information to be added to this article, but there has been no edit war, so it's hard to know what he's talking about. (Apologies for assuming HeartyBowl is a he and not a she.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. People are not that gullible. Suuuuuuuuure Wikipedia is neutral. My foot. That is why EVERY single sentence in this article from top to bottom places Farley in positive light and in her support. Everything from how she supports female ordination, abortion and many other things in opposition of the Roman Catholic teachings. Where are the comments of the Holy See? Where are the comments by Cardinal William Levada? He is the highest head of the Roman Curia and no direct verbatim or comment of his is to be found anywhere. But the list goes on and on how every other person in support of Farley and in condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church is here. Support here, support there. Support of Farley everywhere. Surreeee..... of course the article is neutral. Gimme a break Kit Kat Bar. I don't even want to add anything because I know its going to engage meself in an edit war. At least I get to voice my thoughts on the Talk page. Baa baa baa Catholic sheep here. This is the exact reason why I sympathize with the SSPX on many occasions. I propose lets just put that Farley's book became a #1 sensation overnight at Amazon.com... wouldn't liberals and leftist love that. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)HeartyBowl1989[reply]

It would be beneficial to make a necessary distinction. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in effect stated that Farley's book is not Catholic theology, not that it is not theology. In that respect the author is not a Catholic theologian in the sense of an investigator and explainer of Catholic teaching (cf. the remark by Dulles). The Congregation said Farley hardly ever mentioned the Catholic Church's teaching and, when she did, treated it simply as one opinion among many, and she herself in her consequent statement confirmed that her book was unrelated to Catholic teaching. But she can be called a theologian in the same sense as an Anglican, Baptist, Mormon or Presbyterian can be called a theologian. Esoglou (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It is not approved Roman Catholic theology and that fact should be duly noted as such. Since every single liberal anti-Catholic columnist and commenter get to take a dig conservative Christian views and the Catholic church on this article anyway. Tolerance goes both ways. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican

[edit]

I think it reasonable to use the word Vatican to describe the agency that censured Farley, if only for the sake of varying our prose and not repeating the words Holy See or Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That said, it's important not to wikilink the word like this: Vatican, because that goes to a disambiguation page. I've seen bad examples where people write that "The White House had no comment." and the White House link goes to the residence, when what is meant is something like "the administration of President X." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Margaret Farley. 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) 05:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Farley. 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) 23:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Farley&oldid=1257745562"