Talk:Maria Monk

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

Untitled[edit]

I beg your pardon? This sentence was not "incoherent patent nonsense", it was a perfectly reasonable statement. What it mean was that the nuns are described as "Saint Deirdre" or whatever, which I believe is contrary to Catholic theology, they would be called "Sister Deirdre", you cannot describe any living person as a saint (not even the Pope). Which suggests that it was a fraudulent work. Or is my theology shaky? PatGallacher 01:48, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

This whole article screams "hatchet job". I don't know anything about the subject, but the entire thing seems one-sided and definitely not encyclopaedic.


A few illustrative excerpts: "One result of this brain injury was that Monk became easily manipulated, and was not able to distinguish between fact and fantasy."

"whoever wrote it was not entirely lacking in ability as a writer."

"it does not always adopt a sensationalist tone."

"Monk or her handlers hoped to cash in on the evident market for anti-Catholic horror fiction"

"Inquiry found no evidence to support the claims"

"It was later rumored that she was actually a Montreal prostitute and had spent the seven years in Magdalen Asylum for Wayward Girls"

"She penned a sequel ... which added nothing to her tale"

"When she gave birth to another illegitimate child in 1838, most of her supporters abandoned her."

"Recently, it has been suggested that ... there may be a grain of truth in her story ... However, this view is highly controversial."


The edit from 23:56, 15 Feb 2005 by "PatGallacher" seems particularly one-sided.

--203.11.174.3 05:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

omission[edit]

I deleted this:

Recently, it has been suggested that in the light of recent revelations about clerical sexual abuse and mistreatment of children in some religious schools in Canada and elsewhere, there may be a grain of truth in her story, i.e. she may have been genuinely sexually abused by a priest in the past, even if her story grew in the telling. However, this view is highly controversial.

There is no evidence or citation for this "controversial" view. It is bias.

Also this:

The work is a curious one, since whoever wrote it was not entirely lacking in ability as a writer; it is in places a psychologically plausible description of the sort of thing that conceivably could go on in some ultra-authoritarian institutions, and it does not always adopt a sensationalist tone in spite of the very serious nature of its allegations.

Uh, not sensationalist? Have you actually read the book? It is lurid in the extreme.

As a Catholic-convert, I appreciate your deletion of the two above passages. I have read quite a bit about the scandal and I have not heard any connection between the thoroughly discredited Maria Monk. I have heard, perhaps through rumor handed down through the years, that Ms. Monk was not even Catholic. I could not find a source for that, however.

Successive Editions[edit]

Am about to consult Library of Congress, New Zealand Bibliographic Database and Natl Library of Australia Biblio Database for information about current editions of Maria Monk. Back soon. User Calibanu11:23, 12 May 2006.

Done. Is anyone aware of any subsequent editions of her tale that I've missed? User Calibanu 13:32, 12 May 2006.


I do like the way you say that recent facsimile editions are presumably intended for those studying the riots/that sort of thing....I know a virulently protestant bookshop which retails the story as absolute truth....

but then, they also sell Jack Chick.

Attempted To Escape, Or Merely Left?[edit]

The section "An atmosphere of anti-Catholic sensationalism" contains the following statement: This convent was burnt down by a mob ... after an incident in which one of the nuns attempted to escape and was persuaded to return... The WP article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursuline_Convent_Riots mentions nothing about an "escape" and merely states that a nun had "made her way to the home of Edward Cutter...". I will remove the sensationalistic and unsupported language, but if someone can find a reference to support it, it can be put back. Hi There 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

The first sentence of the article says that Monk died in 1849, but the "Later life" section says she died in 1839. Also, the article says that Monk "gave birth to another child, Oliver (a brother to William)" but it doesn't mention her having a previous child named William. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Monk. 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) 11:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Monk. 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) 14:18, 10 December 2017 (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) 20:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Monk&oldid=1209137872"