Talk:Raymond Leo Burke
Raymond Leo Burke has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 10, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raymond Leo Burke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Vandalism
[edit]I guess based on current media attention due to Burke's support of conspiracy theories regarding Covid Vaccination as well as his own hospitalization at least one person is interested in adding some non-neutral/inflammatory stuff to this article, specifically User talk:69.119.123.193. Can somebody with some authority/knowledge on how to handle this do something about this. Apologies if this is the wrong way to handle this, I just stumbled upon this and saw my attempts to revert the references to him as a Creep and Pharisee undone almost immediately 2A02:810B:1040:38A0:24A9:D562:2BFD:DE09 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree vandalism appears to be a problem, I recommend making this page protected with only ones with accounts can edit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- It does seem that most, but not all, of the unconstructive edits are coming from IP editors, but there are also constructive edits coming from IP editors. At this point, it does not seem to me to be bad enough to request semi-protection. However, as an auto-confirmed user, you can request that through twinkle. If you haven’t got twinkle, you can enable it yourself. See WP:TW. Constant314 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Cell lines
[edit]The article currently states: Burke said that […] it is "never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses." These remarks are misleading; the effectiveness of Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna vaccines was testing using cell lines derived from fetal tissue taken from elective abortions decades earlier (in the 1970s and 1980s). I cannot see what would be misleading in his statement, because he speaks about the vaccine development having included the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses; and the supposed correction in the second sentence also speaks about the vaccine's testing (that's the only difference I see, but isn't that a part of "development"?) having included the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses. When I read it, I could not see in what his statement contradicts the sourced claim in that second sentence. If no substantial difference is pointed out, I propose the second sentence to be deleted, leaving only the first one (the statement attributed to him). --Blahma (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Pope Francis wants to take away the house and salary of the cardinal, defined as his enemy
[edit]sourced here 87.8.120.180 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
NAC Class of 1975
[edit]@Display name 99: RE your reversion of my addition concerning the NAC class of 1975.
"This link is just to a list of articles, none of which that I found seem to be about this."
From the Pillar article I cited: "By my count — and thanks to the current NAC seminarian who helped me get a class list — there were ten bishops chosen from the North American College’s Class of 75, including three cardinals: (Cardinal) Cupich, Zurek, Hoeppner, Cote, Mulvey, Kagan, (Leonard) Blair, (Cardinal) Harvey, Provost, and (Cardinal) Burke." -- Which seems to be very pertinent to the article at hand.
"Also, don't put a link in between two pieces of text cited to the same source without adding another link to the earlier source before the new text that you add; it corrupts text to citation integrity."
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but would be open to implementing it if you could explain it further.
Edit: Shifting discussion of this to your talk page following similar reversions on other pages.
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- GA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Missouri articles
- Mid-importance Missouri articles
- GA-Class Wisconsin articles
- Mid-importance Wisconsin articles
- GA-Class Catholicism articles
- Mid-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- GA-Class European Microstates articles
- Unknown-importance European Microstates articles
- GA-Class Vatican City articles
- Mid-importance Vatican City articles
- Vatican City articles
- WikiProject European Microstates articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics