Talk:Joan Chittister

message: Describing Joan Chittister as a "a heretical[1] Benedictine nun[2], author[3] and speaker[4]" seems to be causing trouble for someone, but there's no discernible reason why, given that the original revert was because there were no proper sources, and I then supplied a proper source [] from the subject of the article herself.
Given the evidence above on this talk page and the deeper page history, there used to be a "Criticisms" category (perhaps fair, given that so much her noteworthiness rest on her attacks on mainstream Catholic teaching) but this was squashed following censorship by her supporters. Consequently, straightforward categorisation of her as a heretical nun would seem to be the most delicate way of skirting the need for a category detailing the various criticisms and controversies surrounding her work.
"Heretical" used to be taken as applying to anyone who was a dissident, even a political one, but the definition has been very much tightened up.
"Only a belief that directly contravenes an Article of Faith, or that has been explicitly rejected by the Church, is labelled as actual "heresy.""
The most minimalist understanding of Articles of Faith would bypass all Ecumenical Councils and Papal Encyclicals and be limited to the Nicene Creed, which makes frequent and heavy masculine references to God of the kind that Chittister wrote against in the source I provided. Beyond this, the source provided contains numerous instances of Chittister's beliefs as contrary to principles of and facts about the Catholic Church.
* Suggesting that Friday Abstinence is no longer recommended.
* Suggesting that the Sunday Obligation no longer stands.
* Asserting that the Church understands "multis" to mean "all" not "many".
* Asserting that liturgical style represents schismatic division.
And there are myriad sources for
* Asserting that women priests exist, though Ordinatio Sacerdotalis demonstrates the Catholic position.
Rather than rake over all the controversies and conflicts that caused so much trouble in the history of the article, it seems much more diplomatic to just acknowledge her heretical heterodoxy and save everyone from inevitable edit-wars over a "Criticisms" category.--XVI Chancer (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOR and WP:BLP. You are offering an interpretation, which right or wrong is still yours. It also seems odd that is she is heretical that she isn't being officially denounced. If that were the case, we could certainly include it. As this is a BLP issue it's best discussed at WP:BLPN as discussions here can't override our BLP policy. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Church doesn't lock up or exile heretics anymore, because the only possibility for progress is dialogue. It's not the Middle Ages any more! As sources have been provided which demonstrate a fact (a+b=c), surely whoever has made a complaint to the Foundation must provide sources to disprove or discredit said fact before any action is taken?--XVI Chancer (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the other way around. Our policy on original research at WP:NOR says that you can't make the sort of 'demonstration' you have, and WP:BLP makes it clear that editors should "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." It actually says this twice, " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".  Take it to WP:BLPN if you still want to add it. Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done as you recommended in reading WP:NOR and WP:BLP and taking it to WP:BLPN. The key word I think is "contentious". The source is her own work and demonstrably proves the objectivity of the reverted part of my edit, so there's no room for contention. The article as it stands is unfortunately quite misleading, but is it really worth the rigmarole of the old "Controversies" subheading? I'm not yet convinced.--XVI Chancer (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "heterodox/heretical nun"

message: Primary sources include trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KQ4F-RTW United States Census, 1940 does not appear to be a primary source, but is a secondary source. The primary source is the Census Records which were not cited directly in the reference. The secondary source, which this is, is the summary prepared by the genealogical website of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, which uses aggregated data from public databases.
I believe you're overlapping primary and secondary to eliminate any secondary source that in any way, shape, or form relies on primary sources. Everything ultimately relies on primary sources. -- Eblem (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't start this dispute on more than one article talk page. We've already begun discussion on Talk:Phyllis Zagano#Date of Birth. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Joan Chittister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101221091051/http://ncronline.org/user/5 to http://ncronline.org/user/5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked this change by Cyberbot and I do not believe it is good. The change produces a 404 error. If I change tag to 'true' this will mean I approve the edit; so it shall remain with a red X. meanwhile I have warned off the bot from this page, I think.  Fylbecatulous talk 13:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified