Jump to content

Talk:Raymond Leo Burke/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Richard F. Dungar

I do volunteer work at Aquinas High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin with the archives/alumni graduating from Aquinas High School in 1969. In 1995, Aquinas High School built an addition that was named: Bishop Burke Hall in honor of Bishop Burke. A small but important fact about Bishop Burke. Thank you! Richard F. Dungar La Crosse, Wisconsin The article about Archbishop Burke should be linked to the following websites:Diocese of La Crosse,Aquinas High School of La Crosse(under the Aquinas Schools website),Our Lady of Guadalupe of La Crosse,Wisconsin that Archbishop Burke established before he left La Crosse.And some articles and letters from the alternative newspaper THE RIVERFRONT TIMES of St. Louis Missouri about Archbishop Burke of which are not favorable should be included.Thank you-Richard Dungar-La Crosse,Wisconsin-

Richard-Thanks for your suggestions and welcome to Wikipedia! I have added the links you mentioned, and I have also added some of the information you provided about Burke's time in La Crosse to the body of the text. Of course the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that anybody-including you!-can add links or edit the text. So please, be bold, and make any other changes you see that can improve this or other articles. Thanks again, and if you have questions, just ask! TMS63112 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

St Joseph the Workman

Thank you for your help.The Cathedral Parish of St. Joseph the Workman in La Crosse also has a website, but that is linked to the La Crosse Diocese website.Also Archbishop Burke was the subject of some articles and comments on the discussion board of the SNAP website the survivors network of people abused by the clergy.But you have to look through the threads to find the messages/comments and use search to find the various articles about Bishop Burke.I am not crazy about SNAP it is too incendiary.I do not expect you to link SNAP to the Archbishop Burke article.It does make interesting reading.Thank you- Richard F. Dungar-La Crosse,Wisconsin-

St Joseph the Workman

If you typed up the Cathedral of St Joseph the Workman parish,La Crosse,Wisconsin, the website should come up and can be link to the Archbishop Burke article.Please go through the threads on the SNAP website about Bishop Burke and the Diocese of La Crosse as well as the articles.Please let myself know what you think.Thank you- Richard Dungar-La Crosse,Wisconsin-

St Joseph the Workman

I try to insert the Cathedral of St Joseph the Workman website in the Burke article but it did not work out.Anyone who goes through La Crosse Diocesan website can access the Cathedral Parish website.However,I did successed in inserting the Campion Jesuit High School websites in the Leo Ryan article immediately after Campion Jesuit High School.I have a feeling there will not be any problems there.Thanks-Richard Dungar

Controversial

I added the controversial tag to this article as there have lately been many edits, some reverting previous edits. The main source of the controversy seems to be around the St. Stanislaus Kostka issue. Will everyone editing this article please:

  1. keep a neutral point of view
  2. limit edits to factual information
  3. attempt to make their changes in one, or just a few edits. Multiple consecutive edits make it more difficult to review the history of an article. You can use the "Show preview" button to review your changes prior to saving them.
  4. For those without a username, consider creating an account. This will identify your edits by your username instead of the IP address of your machine.

Thanks. Kenj0418 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What is factual when you say 'controversial' but the millions of Catholics worldwide say thank you to Archbishop Burke. I challenge the neutrality of this article and the heading of controversy when the controversy is generated by the party who speaks against Roman Catholic teaching. It is obvious to me that this is another example of anti-Catholicism on Wikipedia. Who do you believe? A couple of misguided celebrities or millions of Catholics? Sheryl Crow is controversial, Rick Majerus is controversial, et al, Archbishop Burke is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.213.105 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Board Members

There were several edits back and forth regarding whether there were five or six board members subject to the Archbishop's interdict. The article lists five by name. This web site, presumably of their parish board, [1], lists the same five people. I've change the article to say five. If anyone is aware of a sixth member, please add them and cite where this information can be found. Kenj0418 04:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC) http://www.saveststans.org/InterdictOrder.html

Someone has change it back to six. Looking at the documents from both the Archdiocese and the lay board, they both say there are six members, but then list five. Does anyone know why there is this discrepancy? Kenj0418 14:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RFT Stories

I was the one that suggested using RIVERFRONT TIMES,the letters and articles, in this article.When I saw the discussion about Archbishop Burke,I decided to join Wikipedia today.I would prefer if the letters about Bishop Burke be kept in this article as an external link for historical purposes.They may add some information.Otherwise,people go to the RIVERFRONT TIMES website and hunt for the letters. Also I wrote the comments about this article prior to joining Wikipedia RFD-December RFD 18:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

While the letters to the editor regarding Burke are relevant, they clearly aren't encyclopedic. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a public forum or message board -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, a community second, and a message board never." Kenj0418 06:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Here are the links in question:
Letters to the Editor
More Letters (at bottom of page)
I think it's helpful to have the link to the letters to the editor on the discussion page, but I think it would be more appropriate to inlcude them with the other links in the article. I don't think that including a link to Letters to the Editor about the topic of a Wikipedia article that have previously been published in a newspaper of wide circulation turns Wikipedia into a message board. The letters provide a counterpoint to the views expressed in the RFT articles, and therefore help provide balance for a reader who is interested in further detail. TMS63112 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that a letter to the editor from some unknown person is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you are seeking provide balance to the RFT story, I think it would be more appriate to either replace the links with a similar story from a less biased source, or include a countering link from a Pro-Burke source (the St. Louis Review perhaps). Kenj0418 01:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Riverfront Times

Thank you for your response regarding The RIVERFRONT TIMES.Thank you for putting the links on the discussion section.RFD 10:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Raymond Leo Burke-

In all fairness to Bishop Burke,he meant well when he founded the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse,when,he headed the Diocese of La Crosse. The Necedah Shrine in Necedah,Wisconsin was one of the reasons for the Guadalupe Shrine. The Bishops of La Crosse had had some sort of dialog with the people connected with the Necedah Shrine. Originally,Bishop Burke wanted to buy the old convent where some cloistered Dominican nuns had lived in La Crosse.The Bishop could not buy the building.The Swing family instead donated the land and a separate corporate entity was created for the Guadalupe Shrine. Initially,the Guadalupe Shrine was to be named in honor of our Lady of Fatima,but,Pope John Paul II declared Our Lady of Guadalupe to be the patroness saint of the Americas and thus the name of the shrine was changed.Thank you- RFD 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving St. Stanislaus to seperate Article

The St. Stanislaus issue has grown to the point where it warranted a seperate article. I have created it St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis), consisting of a short intro and the contents formaly found in the St. Stanislaus section on the Archbishop's article. Kenj0418 14:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good move. . .I was considering doing that myself. Thanks! TMS63112 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias / Controversy -- St. Stanislaus

I understand that this is a controversy topic and that there are strongly held views on both sides. Will all parties involved please refrain from adding blatantly biased text to the article page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is supposed to have a neutral point of view. Adding your personal view (however valid it may be) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you have a desire to express your views regarding (choose one: the Archbishop's land grab / the prideful board refusing to obey church authority) this is not the forum for it. I suggest you create a blog to express your personal views, and refrain from making blatantly biased edits on Wikipedia. Kenj0418 06:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible changes to article

Bishop Burke grew up in Stratford,Wisconsin in Marathon County.He had gone back to Stratford when he was in La Crosse.A comment should be made about that one in the article.Catholic University of America should be wikified as there is an article about the university in Wikipedia.I am relunctant to make changes in the article without some sort of consent. Thanks RFD 12:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC) I did add a section in the Stratford,Wisconsin article about famous people and Bishop Burke is listed there along with Andrew Rock.RFD 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC) I decided to go ahead and make the above changes myself.Please let myself know if there would be any problems.Thanks.RFD 16:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

On the vandalism to the Archbishop Burke article-

To whoever has been vandalizing the Archbishop Burke article-please stop.It is getting very mean and nasty. Plus you did damage to the external links just leaving the external links of which reflects your own views. Please respond to this;otherwise,the Archbishop Burke article could be put under protection.Please respond to this messege.Thank you-RFD 17:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already requested mediation regarding this page and St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis). See my mediation request or Talk:St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis) for more information.
I've reverted some blanking of a citation by 70.43.79.171 . I'll try to find more blanks from other articles too. Mbelrose 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources section to the Archbishop Burke article-

I added a section to the article of some manuscripts,Archbishop Burke wrote, while he was in Rome. The WISCAT catalog on Badger Link help provided the information courtesy of the State of Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I renamed the section to "Published Works" as "Sources" was slightly confusing (might also have indicated that they were sources for the article). Kenj0418 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop Burke-priestly career-

I clarified this section that Fr. Burke taught religion at Aquinas High School and at the same time had to remove an very nasty comment about the Archbishop and church takeovers.Thank you-RFD 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Achieving NPOV and Balance

I appreciate the contribution of all the participants. My greatest concern with this article and the St. Stans article is that we may not be achieving the proper Wikipedian balance. It is very commendable that the article is designated as controversial on the discussion page. May I make two suggestions: (1) indicate that the article on the Raymond Leo Burke page, as it relates to the St. Stans section is controversial and that there is a question of neutrality because facts relative to the St. Stans position may not have been included.

I have added a section neutrality note in the St. Stans section of the Burke article per your request. Hopefully with User:Izehar's help we can resolve the disputes and get suitable versions of the articles and remove this note. kenj0418 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(2) Restore the external link to savesttans.org. I know it exists in the St.Stans article but perhaps it should also exist here because St. Stans and its Board of Directors is the priciple focus.

I don't think we should have any of the St. Stans-specific external links on the Burke article (not the Pro-burke or the Save St. Stans links). I think the only links that should be on this article are the ones that relate specifically to Burke (and not a more specific article like the St. Stans article). I have the following opinion on what links belong here or elsewhere:
I think these links are related more to another article and could be removed from here (and added in the other article if not already there):
I think these are related specifically to this article:
  • The Archdiocese of St. Louis - Biography of Archbishop Burke (pro-Burke presumably) - keep
  • Riverfront Times Articles Critical of Archbishop Burke (both anti-Burke)
    • "Bishop Takes Queen" - delete, attack article with little value
    • "Immaculate Deception" - replace with a better aricle critical of Archbishop Burke
kenj0418 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point I don't see any reason to remove any external links.

Based on my interpretation of Wikipedia:External_links, my view is that if a link relates specifically to the article's topic (and is otherwise acceptable), it should be on that article. If the link relates to an ancillary topic that has its own Wikipedia article, then that Wikipedia should be referenced (with Wiki links) and the link placed on the other article. If the link relates to an ancillary topic that doesn't have its own article (and creating a new article for that topic isn't appropriate for whaterver reason), then if the link was of sufficient value to the main article I would also support adding it. kenj0418 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My sense is the issues can be resolved in an amicable fashion although perhaps not to the 100% satisfaction of each side. My suggestions may indicate to the anonymous participants that we value their points but they must be made in a Wikipedian style of collegiality. Kenj0418 would you consider making these modifications. Since I am new to the process, I don't want to do anything incorrectly.

I have added the section POV note per your request. Since I would prefer moving (and deleting from here) more of the external links (as explained above), I didn't make that change. Also, I'm not sure of the process of making edits with the mediation going on I will ask User:Izehar about this. kenj0418 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
After reading User:Izehar's response on the mediation request page, it looks like you (BNA-WTTWA that is) should edit the duplicate articles at the following links to address the neutrality issues you beleive exist in the current versions of the pages:
When you have versions that are acceptable to you, then let Izehar know (on the mediation request page or his talk page I assume). Then everyone else can look at your versions and see if they are acceptable to us.
I assume we should avoid substantive edits on the live versions of the article's until the dispute is resolved. kenj0418 03:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Kenj0418, thank you for encouraging participation.

You're welcome. kenj0418 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

BNA-WTTWA 22:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to (1/1/06)Kenj0418 thank you for your inclusion of the NPOV warning in the St.Stans section of the RLB article.

May I suggest that the same be done for the entire St.Stans article (NPOV notification). I have sent a comment to our mediator of this view.( I uncertain on how to proceed so that all parties are duly informed of changes or suggested changes.

I see that you have already done this -- thanks. kenj0418 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on external links I am in generally very close agreement. However, I do have a concern with the Riverfront Times link-- it comes very close to feeling like "bashing". Links critical to the Archbishop are "fair", and help to achieve NPOV and Balance, however appropriate restraint while expressing a POV seems reasonable. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive and would appreciate your feedback.(This sensitivity I try to carry to all perspectives in a discussion).

I also question the value of the RFT articles (and the RFT in general, but that's a different issue :-). I especially question the value of the "Bishop Takes Queen" article. As far as the "Immaculate Deception" goes, I don't like that one either, but I suspect that is my POV showing thru (and my personal dislike for the RFT as a news source). I would strongly support removing the "Bishop Takes Queen" article. If there is an alternate critical article (perhaps from the Post-dispatch, a paper in Wisconsin, or some other source more respected than the RFT) I'd support replacing the other RFT article. I've updated my list of links and my prefered action with each above to reflect this. kenj0418 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an almost external issue but it might be helpful to be able to access the St. Stans article in the same manner as the RLB article e.g. it does not matter if upper or lower case 'raymond leo burke' etc. one can get to the article. As it stands now this the "difficulty in access" seems to not tobe helpful to the discussion.

wikipedia handles the conversion from upper/lower case as long as the text matches otherwise. I've added redirection pages for "Saint Stanislaus Kostka Church", "St Stanislaus Kostka Church", and previously added "St. Stanislaus Kostka Church". All of these should work with upper or lower case. If there are any common spelling errors or variations, let me know and I can create redirects for those also. If this isn't what you meant, let me know. kenj0418 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point on going to the duplicate page as indicated by our mediator Izehar and not making any edits to this or the St.Stans page other than the POV comment and a brief note in the St.Stans discussion page that links back. In my modifications of the St. Stans section here and the St.Stans article I will be trying to follow your lead as demonstrated in the RLB text with a few slight modifications. It seems to conform to "encyclopedic" linguistic and contextual structure desirable in Wikipedia. Thank you BNA-WTTWA 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added my responses in-line above. kenj0418 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFT articles and letters

I have no problems about omitting the RFT articles and letters from the RLB article.However,I was wondering if someone could linked them in the discussion/talk section of the Diocese of La Crosse article.There was some news media coverage in Wisconsin when the 2 articles came out in 2004.It would be fair if the RFT articles/letters about RLB be linked in the discussion/talk section of the Diocese of La Crosse article.Thank you-RFD 14:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the links to the Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse talk page. kenj0418 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!RFD 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem

Bishop Burke founded the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, so I added the information to this article.Thank you-RFD 22:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved Discussion

The following sections have been moved from the talk pages of editors recently involved in editing this article. —MiraLuka 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:MiraLuka

Hi! Iv've noticed that you've reverted a couple of anonymous editors who've made changes to the Burke article. You describe their edits as "biased." The same changes were made again and I was about to revert but looking at the Leo Burke&diff=next&oldid=55156509 diff I'm not sure the anon edit was biased. I'll leave it alone, but if you think it needs to be reverted, maybe drop a note on the talk page first. Thanks!! TMS63112 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried leaving a note on the talk page of one of the IPs, but I'm not sure if that person got it. —MiraLuka 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. This line is the one I find to be the most biased: "insisting that Catholic politicians may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office" —MiraLuka 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. They got my message, I'll try to work it out. —MiraLuka 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that you and the anon user are trying to come to an agreement on language you both find acceptable. I have been continuing to follow the edits myself. Personally, I do not see a lot of difference between most of the language each of you seems to propose. For whatever it is worth, I tend to agree with you that the phrase "may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office" is a bit too POV. However, I also have a problem with the language about Burke's actions worsening relations with the laity that were already strained by the sex abuse scandal. I don't really see how the sex abuse scandal is directly relevant to the discussion. Including it feels like a POV attempt to tie Burke to the scandal. Perhaps it would be useful for any further discussion to occur at the article's talk page so other users can join in more easily and there can be a record of any consensus that is reached. Thanks! TMS63112 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:70.129.39.54

Hi, please do not continue to add biased information to this article. See WP:NPOV for more information. Thank you. —MiraLuka 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to edit the text so that some patent biases against Archbishop Raymond L. Burke are removed from the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.39.54 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2006, 11:43 (UTC)
Which biases might those be? This line especially, "insisting that Catholic politicians may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office," shows a very Catholic point of view. I also don't see why this line was removed: "Burke's actions have also been seen by some as further damaging an already fragile relationship between the laity and the hierarchy that resulted from the sexual abuse scandals faced by the church in recent years."
P.S. You can sign your posts on talk pages by typing in four tildes (~). —MiraLuka 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
1) insisting that Catholic politicians may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office
This is in fact what Archbishop Burke has asked; to suggest that the issue was solely that of refusing the sacrament of Holy Communion to such politicians is a gross oversimplification, and typical of what was reported in the secular media, to the exclusion of all other details.
2) Burke's actions have also been seen by some as further damaging an already fragile relationship between the laity and the hierarchy that resulted from the sexual abuse scandals faced by the church in recent years.
This is a red herring; when all else fails, throw in a line about the sex abuse scandal. It's also an opinion. Seen as such by whom? Is there a poll, or at least a credible journalistic source, that supports this conclusion?
3) Also, the bit about the priests in the diocese of LaCrosse should be omitted; the only source for this is an article (from the Riverfront Times) with an obvious anti-Burke bias, in which virtually all the complaining "priests" are quoted only on the condition of anonymity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.39.54 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006, 13:31 (UTC)
A note before I actually respond: please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) after it. That will help others to follow the conversation. Also, you may want to consider starting an account here. —MiraLuka 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here are my responses.
1)That phrase has a very...lofty feel to it, implying that all Catholics have identical values in general, and are pro-choice in specific. My mother has been a devout Catholic all of her life, and is pro-choice. Different people have different values, and will disagree on which values are "fundamental."
2)I was uncertain about putting that line back in in the first place, and it does need a source. Looking at it again, I'd say remove the second half ("that resulted from the sexual abuse scandals faced by the church in recent years") for certain, and remove the rest unless a source can be found.
3)The source is certainly biased, but it contains a good quote that I cannot find a better reference for. On looking at the article again, I think the first comment (by the anonymous priest) should go, but the second one should stay. I would suggest balancing the article by finding a pro-Burke site that can be used as a reference elsewhere.
Lastly, please don't do anymore reverts or partial reverts on the page. By doing so, you have removed edit I made, which, according to this conversation, are not ever under dispute or controversial in any way. In the future, we should both simply edit the parts that are in dispute, and only make changes first discussed here. —MiraLuka 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To respond: 1) "Different people have different values, and will disagree on which values are 'fundamental.'" That's not the point; the archbishop is upholding the teaching of the Church, which is what his office obliges him to do. As the text currently reads, this is still a gross oversimplification of what is at issue here, and of what the archbishop actually articulated in this regard. 2) Until this statement can be verified/justified in some wise, it should be deleted altogether. 3) This still appears to be a case of undue emphasis and space given to a point that, as you admit, can only be "verified" in a single (highly biased) source. Just because one feels it has a "good" quote in it hardly justifies its inclusion.66.138.157.97 20:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Okay, but I say again: the phrasing of the original sentence strongly suggested that "traditional Catholic values" were held by all members of the Catholic Church. Here's my question: what should be there? Why don't you write a sentence or two and I'll see what I think?
2) I disagree, but not strongly enough to put it back in at the moment. If I find a source, though, I will put it back.
3) I don't think that any "undue emphasis" is being given. I think that it is worth mentioning that a priest actually resigned because of Burke. And just because a source is biased does not make it unreliable. —MiraLuka 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe

Bishop Burke founded the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. It would be an accurate statement then saying he help established the shrine. The Guadalupe Shrine has Bishop Burke written as "[t]he Founder". I hope the change will not create any problems. Thank you-RFD 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Burke&Fr. Dickman

In the article, someone quoted Fr. Richard Dickman, who was is a priest of the Diocese of La Crosse in the Riverfront Times. It is true:Fr. Dickman took a leave of absence and left the Diocese because of some differences in Bishop Burke; this made it in the news media in Wisconsin. However, according to the July 29, 2006, issue of the Catholic Times the Diocesan newspaper, Fr. Dickman did received an assignment in some parish in the Diocese, from Bishop Listecki. This is an update of what is going on especially with Fr. Dickman being quoted in this article. Thank you- RFD 11:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting details

I wonder if the article should point out that Archb. Burke was - both as priest and as bishop - ordained by the Popes themselves, not by some bishops - an important aspect of his ecclesiastical career. Anchorite 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

His ordination as a priest by Paul VI is mentioned, but his ordination as a bishop is not. I think it deserves mention. —Mira 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually both ordinations are mentioned, but that detail is not stressed out. It seems to me important a detail for the career of this Wisconsin priest to be so attended by two Popes from early on. Anchorite 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Election 2004

The section regarding his comments during the 2004 election is all unsourced. I'll try to go through Post-Dispatch archives to find relevant articles, but if anyone knows of any other sources, that'd be great. I remember the basic gist of what he said, but not enough to know whether the section, which reads like a paraphrase from a direct quote, is completely accurate. Again, please help! Joliefille 09:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The P-D online archives generally do not go back very far. You might want to also take a look at the Southeast Missourian website, which has good on-line archives that go back several years. I have found it is often a good on-line source for Missouri related topics. TMS63112 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas High School, La Crosse, Wisconsin, school archives = Archbishop Burke

There are many materials and items about Archbishop Burke in the Aquinas HS archives. As Fr. Burke, Archbishop Burke taught religion at Aquinas HS from 1977 - 1980. This is a partial list:

  • 'Aquinas News', Aquinas High School, September 22, 1977, vol. 46, no. 14,pg. 5, 'Seven teachers join Aquinas staff'. Article about Fr. Burke joining the Aquinas faculty.
  • 'Aquinas News', Aquinas High School, September 25, 1980, vol. 50, no. 1, pg. 1, 'Fr. Burke in Rome', Pam Wagner, class of 1981. Article about Fr. Burke going to Rome to study canon law.

I had thought of putting the references on the article itself. However, I am putting the references on the discussion page. Thank you- RFD 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources or it stays out

I have removed material from blp=yes that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations and the Diocese of La Crosse- There a space in ' La Crosse' not 'LaCrosse'

I added citations to several sections pertaining to the Diocese of La Crosse, I being Roman Catholic and living in the Diocese itself. However, I put no citations in concerning Bishop Burke and the Archdiocese of St. Louis. I am not knowledgeable what goes on in the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

Finally, there is a space in 'La Crosse'; it is not 'LaCrosse' this being La Crosse, Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many changes: no citations or footnotes cited and no explanation given

There has been too many changes in the Raymond Leo Burke article with no citations/footnotes added and no explanations or reasons given. I hope some administrators, etc., will take note of this. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Demotion may have weakened Conservatives

Fox News suggests the demotion of Cardinal Burke inhibited other conservatives from opposing Pope Francis and states:

The move sent a chill through the ranks of American conservative bishops, nearly two dozen of whom declined comment when contacted by FoxNews.com, despite many having previously expressed strong doubts about the church's leftward swerve under Francis, who assumed the papacy in 2013. (See Cardinal's demotion helps Pope Francis quell 'conservative backlash' -- for now).

Seasoned Vatican watchers have been expecting the move to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta for months and I'm sure it surprised nobody of any importance in the Church hierarchy. Why should an expected move have a chilling effect? Also I doubt if Fox News is reliable enough to cite in Wikipedia. I'm leaving it out of the article for now but I'm checking Reuters since that is reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pope demotes outspoken American conservative cardinal This is all I could find from Reuters and it hardly confirms the Fox News statement, "Pope Francis' demotion of Cardinal Raymond Burke sent a chill through the ranks of American conservatives within the church, say Vatican experts. (Reuters)" in the above Fox News article. Still I suggest waiting and seeing what effect if any the demotion has on others in the Church heirirchy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Charges of defamation and 'attacks'; removal of edits, citations++

Raised and addressed/rebutted, first round at least, here. Would be glad to have further discussion here or there if it's wished. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Demotion logic

To interpret his *change* to Malta as *not* a demotion, please cite at least one source which reports on it without denigratory comment, otherwise the usage of "mostly" is appropriate in this context.Wjhonson (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Burke is out of step with Pope Francis

I see what my critic is getting at. I changed the word 'position' to 'comparison'. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"unusual" is a quantifiable fact, but "certainly out of step" is a matter of opinion. Is this source really so reliable and authoritative so as to pronounce upon who and what is out of step with a certain perception of Francis' tone? Here I'd like to point out that there are many commentators upon and interpretations of Francis' tone, papacy, and ministry, which is perfectly fine, but according to WP:NPOV we should not favor one interpretation of Francis over others, which this source certainly does in critiquing Burke vis-a-vis Francis' supposed "pastoral tone", and by extension, which this wiki article does by favoring one interpretation over others as a statement of fact. I will not delete this addition without consensus, since it is cited properly, but I move that it be stricken from the article, per WP:NPOV. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 15:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
My source is the award winning National Catholic Reporter. There is a widely held view that Burke doesn't get on well with Pope Francis and that his transfer to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta was a demotion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I altered the wording again to make the 'out of step' part an opinion rather than a fact. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I think your most recent edit provides opinion as opinion in an impartial manner. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 18:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Raymond Leo Burke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cardinal Burke-oral history-dairy farm

Cardinal Burke recently did an oral history about growing up on a dairy farm; Ed Janus-oral history project This would be an important source about Cardinal Burke's early life. Thank you-RFD (talk)

"Janus has cast a wide net for this new project, and he recently interviewed Cardinal Raymond Burke, who grew up on a Wisconsin dairy farm. His interviews will be archived by the historical society, and Janus hopes to publish them as an e-book." We don't know whether the interview has actually been archived, whether it's of any value, and whether the interview can reliably be used as a source for this article. I'm also somewhat skeptical that Burke's musings on life on a dairy farm are something of significance that we want to cover on a Wikipedia article! Let's get a bit more serious shall we? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to alert people in and outside of the Wikipedia Community about a possible new source. Ed Janus's oral history project is an ongoing project. Raymond Burke did grew up on a dairy farm and it could very well be an important factor in his life. My apologies for any problems I may had caused. I was assuming good faith when I provided this link to Ed Janus's oral history project because I thought it might be of interest to people especially the readers. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Alert us when there is something tangible to share that we can actually use to improve the article - as opposed to a general forum about any ephemera relating to Burke! Contaldo80 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Raymond Leo Burke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Liturgical abuses

I'm baffled as to what the section on "liturgical abuses" actually refers to. What on earth is a "bad mass"? We need to make this section more user friendly or it needs to go. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Contaldo80, the liturgical abuse section is important. It describes Burke's concerns with how many in the Church have developed a much more relaxed attitude towards the liturgy, not viewing it with the same reverence as before and not dealing with abuses seriously enough. The "bad Mass" source turned out to be a dead link, so I got rid of it but re-added everything else for said reasons. I also eliminated some close paraphrasing. Display name 99 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
What sort of "abuse" of the liturgy are we talking about - can we be more specific? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raymond Leo Burke. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Raymond Leo Burke. 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:

--What kind of phrase is: "Two anonymous priests in the Diocese of La Crosse said that Burke's leadership was divisive." This is obviously not a unbiased fact, it sounds like hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.228 (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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) 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Tag

To the editor who keeps removing material without talking it through can you please do so here - so that we can have a more constructive approach. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Raymond Leo Burke. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV over homosexuality section

There has been a slow-burning edit war over the name of the section, currently titled Opposition to gay rights. Contaldo80 has changed the long-standing name of the section and reverted several editors who have tried to change it to something else.

My own opinion on the matter is that "Opposition to gay rights" is a wholly non-neutral name for the section. The crux of the matter is not gay rights, but is homosexuality, of which gay rights are only one part. Moreover, it is simply less accurate to say in the title that he opposes gay rights than to say he opposes homosexuality, as the former conveys only his political stance, while the latter conveys both his political stance and his broader ideological stance on which the political is based. Therefore, I support restoring the section to its previous name or renaming it Opposition to homosexuality, which I had changed it to before being reverted by Contaldo80. Ergo Sum 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Opposition to gay rights" is a more accurate description of the material. The material talks about Burke opposing gay marriage and relationships and legislation to stop discrimination at work etc. It is active opposition to the recognition of rights. "Homosexuality" as a subject heading really doesn't capture the issue - I can therefore accept "Opposition to homosexuality and gay rights" as a compromise. Personally I can't see how someone can "oppose" homosexuality - could someone "oppose heterosexuality"? I can't see any material that suggests he is in favour of either homosexuality or gay rights but I'm happy to stand corrected. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The same slow-burning edit wars have taken place on other articles as well with similar section titles. Several editors, registered and unregistered, including me, have attempted to change them. They have all been reverted-mostly by Contaldo80. My opinion is that "Opposition to homosexuality" is not only more neutral but more appropriate and comprehensive. Nobody's arguing that Burke doesn't oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage. But that's not all he opposes. He also thinks that it's morally wrong for two people of the same sex to engage in sexual activity. That's not so much a question of rights as it is morals, of right and wrong. And someone could "oppose heterosexuality" if they believed it was wrong for a man and woman to have sex. Burke believes the same for same-sex activities, which does make him opposed to homosexuality, both the activity itself and the recognition of it. Basically, the word homosexuality includes "gay rights," so there's no reason to use both. Display name 99 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Cobraman202, since you were the most recent editor on this article to have your change to that section undone, what are your thoughts on changing the section to "Opposition to homosexuality?" If you're fine with it then I think one of us can go ahead and do it. 3 vs. 1 seems like enough for consensus to me. Display name 99 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
(Pardon if I'm doing something wrong here, first time doing this type of edit) I think that the term "opposed to homosexuality" would work fine. Given some time to think about what his eminence has said, I think its a rather fitting assessment. However, I dislike the immediate connotation of associating being anti-homosexual with being anti-gay rights. Its possible to say that gay peoples should have rights (Freedom of speech, ETC), but not be able to marry. Anti- Gay marriage might be more appropriate for anyone who is more moderate, but this is beside the point. Cobraman202 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'll make the change. Consensus appears to support it. I could accept "Opposition to same-sex marriage" if that's what Contaldo80 or anyone else prefers. But I think homosexuality is best because it is more broad and covers all same-sex activities. Display name 99 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
We're in a position where two Catholic editors (as demonstrated by user page and terminology of "his eminence" above) have agreed the wording of a sub-section that does not in my mind respect neutrality in relation to the LGBT perspective when dealing with a conservative catholic (Burke), and shows a limited understanding of homosexuality. This is weak "consensus". With all due respect the fact that Burke has not called for the silencing of people who are gay as a general principle cannot be seen as some sort of acceptance of "gay rights" in limited instances. Gay rights are the right to get married, not fear violence or imprisonment, and be protected from discrimination. Burke record shows he does not recognise gay rights - he probably doesn't even recognise that people can identify as "gay". It is clear he is opposed not only to sexual relations between men and between women - but that he opposes any formal recognition of relationships, protections against discrimination etc. He also at the very conservative end of the spectrum on this issue and is increasingly out of step with other clergy on taking such a hard line. So once again I ask that this section be called "Opposition to homosexuality and gay rights" and urge editors to set aside personal religious convictions when considering this issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
he probably doesn't even recognise that people can identify as "gay". WTF? I'm not sure how adding a ridiculous unsourced statement that has nothing to do with anything helps your argument. It is clear he is opposed not only to sexual relations between men and between women - but that he opposes any formal recognition of relationships, protections against discrimination etc. Yes. we all agree on that. But all of it falls under the broader umbrella of homosexuality. 3 to 1 is enough for consensus. If we count the IP whom you reverted here a little while ago then that's 4. And that's only going back to the beginning of this year. And it is clear that some of us have our opinions and thoughts on this matter, and an identity which might impact how we view the subject. But then again, from looking at what you've revealed on your userpage, you do too. If our judgment can be impaired by personal bias, then so can yours. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
"He probably doesn't even recognise that people can identify as "gay"". No seriously he probably doesn't. Many traditionalist catholics draw upon Church teaching to reject the idea that an individual can be defined by their sexual orientation. Therefore the idea of someone being "gay" is very likely to be something that Burke wholeheartedly rejects. The sub-heading "opposition to homosexuality" is therefore misleading. One can be opposed to homosexuality but still permit LGBT rights - many politicians take this stance "I don't agree with this lifestyle but if you want to marry then I won't stop you". Burke is on record as saying he will resist the right for same-sex couples to marry come what may. So it is perfectly fair that the tile should read "Opposition to homosexuality and LGBT rights". You and other editors are perfectly entitled to debate why that should not be the case. I have explained why the broad umbrella of homosexuality is not sufficient. I await responses. If we can get a convincing argument as to why we should go with your proposed response then I'd be happy to consider. But we can't have an approach, I'm afraid, that imposes a conservative catholic perspective (simply because there are several such editors on this page) as this violates neutrality. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I still think the "rights" part is a bit biased. The phrase "LGBT rights" is used just about exclusively by supporters of homosexuality and transgenderism to promote greater recognition for these lifestyles. Could you accept "Opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage?" Display name 99 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
In response to Contaldo80's comments: No one here is trying to impose a "conservative catholic perspective;" it's incumbent upon all editors to assume good faith. As to the substance, you are free to infer that Burke's comments on homosexuality are contraposed to LGBT rights. However, if you read the supporting citations, that is not the way he has framed his views. He has spoken in terms of "homosexuality," not "rights." It is true that he has spoken on the subject of civil unions and same-sex marriage, but only within the broader context of homosexuality. It's really quite clear. Burke's may be an inappropriate frame of looking at it in your opinion, but that doesn't mean we should modify his frame of view on Wikipedia. I cannot support including "LGBT rights" or "same-sex marriage" in the header. Ergo Sum 16:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you but I cannot accept leaving just "opposition to homosexuality". One can be opposed to the act of same sex sex but still support protection and rights of those who are gay from discrimination, violence or to permit them to marry. Burke opposes not only the sexual act but any recognition of rights. He it is true that he does not frame his comments in terms of "rights" because for him the idea of being gay is a nonsense and he would not even begin to entertain the idea of inherent rights. But that's his view and not the reality. We should not modify Wikipedia in order to conform to his view of the world. Two editors are in favour of the compromise position of "Opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage". If you can suggest an alternative that moves us forward then I'm willing to consider. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Practising homosexuality

I've amended the material to remove "practising homosexuality". Partly I've done this because I think it's a somewhat old-fashioned and potentially derogatory term (as it suggests an individual can avoid being homosexual should they so wish). But more significantly I have made the change so that the wording aligns more accurately with the source. It also aligns with the discussion in the church - which is how you deal with Catholics that have a homosexual sexual orientation, whether they are sexually active of note. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with simply saying homosexuality. That works for me. Display name 99 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

In my opinion, the new lead image is of a lower quality than the one that he had until earlier this year. It seems a bit too blurry. It would anyone object to me changing it back? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No response despite two other editors commenting on the talk page elsewhere in the intervening time. I'll change it now. Display name 99 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Vigano letter

I wonder whether it is the right approach to have such a big section in this article on the letter by Viganò which makes serious but as yet unsubstantiated allegations against Pope Francis? This seems peripheral to Burke who has simply said that the claims should be investigated. I think the material should stay either in the Vigano article or the Francis one otherwise we risk WP:UNDUE in terms of Burke and also the fear of repeating rumours thus violating BLP. I'm happy for other editors to debate the point before we decide on action. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I understand your point. I shortened the section by removing quotes and less important details. Please take a look and tell me if you're satisfied. This is probably the biggest controversy so far in the Francis papacy and even though the Burke quote might seem a bit restrained compared to what's he's said in the past and what other bishops are saying now, I'm not in favor of eliminating it altogether. I would also like to talk to you regarding the "Sexual ethics" section. The first two paragraphs have as much to do with abortion as they do divorce or homosexuality. Would you support moving them to directly under the "Views" section header and making "Opposition to homosexuality" and "Divorce" their own separate subsections instead of being under "Sexual ethics?" Display name 99 (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Display name 99 for trying to shorten the section. I think certainly it's an improvement. I'd like to suggest a couple of additions. First to add "On August 25, 2018 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released an 11-page letter describing a series of warnings which he claimed he had given to the Vatican regarding sexual misconduct by Theodore McCarrick." I think this would avoid Wikipedia being drawn into a legal dispute as currently we only have Vigano's words for his actions (and which the Vatican seems to dispute). Secondly I would be inclined to remove the sentence "The letter provoked diverse reactions. It was said to read "in part like a homophobic attack on Francis" filled with "unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks." A number of bishops sharply criticized it[114][115] while others called for an investigation." I feel that this starts to go into more detail than necessary with regards to Vigano and the dispute but instead leave the section simply getting to the heart of the matter - which is Burke's call for an investigation. Hope this is sensible. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I eliminated the sectence that accused Vigano of a "homophobic attack" and of making "unsubstantiated allegations." The reason why I did not get rid of the other sentence is because the information that it contains is what makes this section worth having at all. Some bishops like Burke treated the allegations as credible and called for an investigation. Others dismissed them for lack of evidence or questionable motive. Others still haven't said anything. If every bishop or cardinal called for an investigation, Burke's statement wouldn't be meaningful enough to include at all. I believe it's important to show that there is division in the Church hierarchy and that by calling for an investigation Burke wasn't just saying what everybody else was saying but was actually picking a side in a major dispute. Hopefully that makes sense. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your reasoning. I think it makes sense to illustrate that Burke is influential within the conservative faction of the Church deeply opposed to the reforms of Pope Francis. Thanks for trying to make the material shorter. Personally I think it still has too much detail for this particular article, but it's probably fine. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry just had an additional thought. There are two somewhat random bits at the start of the "views section": "Burke is widely viewed as a leader of the conservative wing of the Church. Shortly after Pope Francis did not re-appoint him to the Congregation of Bishops, Burke said, "One gets the impression, or it's interpreted this way in the media, that he thinks we're talking too much about abortion, too much about the integrity of marriage as between one man and one woman. But we can never talk enough about that."Burke has denied media perceptions that the Pope planned to change the Catholic Church's teaching on moral issues. He said that people "hardened against the truth" would claim that the Pope wants to change church teachings that today's secularized culture rejects. He also said "their false praise of the Holy Father’s approach mocks the fact that he is the Successor of Saint Peter", and consequently "rejects the acceptance and praise of the world"." Could we not add the Vigano bit with this and call it something like "Views on Pope Francis"? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but the problem as I see it is that there is so much overlap between his comments on Pope Francis and his views on certain issues that it would be impossible to create a comprehensive section entitled "Views on Pope Francis" because so much of that information is already in other sections. By far the most significant thing between him and Francis is the dubia. But that belongs in the Divorce section, not in some other section. If you end up creating one yourself in the manner that you described, I won't revert you, but I don't see any major benefit. Display name 99 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes fair enough. I guess it wouldn't be that easy to do in practice. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
With regards to "sexual ethics" I think you're suggestion of having separate headings is a good one and would support. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have some concerns at the inclusion of the following: "According to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the removal of Burke and the elevation of Wuerl happened largely due to the influence of then-cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington". I think we have to be careful about giving too much credence to one individual or source on what remains a controversial subject. Vigano has been shown to be a somewhat unreliable and compromised character. The inclusion of this material makes an unsubstantiated link between Pope Francis and McCarrick - and risks being defamatory as it implies the latter had undue influence over the former. Not sure what the way forward is but I think we risk amplifying whispers and gossip. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether Vigano has shown himself to be unreliable is still very much up for debate. Quite a few do not agree. There are other areas of the article which are based off of speculation as well-for example, the idea that Francis removed Burke from his position on the Apostolic Signatura as punishment for his conservative views. Francis denied that it was intended as a punishment, as the article says, and we can never know for sure, however obvious it may appear. Therefore it is still speculation and gossip. I am fine with adding something like, "This claim has not yet been verified" after the end of the sentence, but it seems to be that to remove it wholesale would be inconsistent with what we are doing in the rest of the article. We have an example of a person making a claim that has yet to be completely verified. But it comes from a prominent Church official and, along with other allegations made by the same Church official, has received significant media attention. So let's put it in the article, say that it is unverified, and leave it at that. Display name 99 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok it still sounds a bit "classroom gossip" to me but I've made the suggested change and can leave off further for now. However I don't think we should refer to Wuerl. Partly because this is an article about Burke and we risk wandering into a wider point about appointments. But more importantly that it risks SYNTHESIS. Neither the source (nor Vigano) explicitly say that Wuerl was brought in to directly replace Burke; only that McCarrick advised Francis on both appointments. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Very well. I'm fine with the current version. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I just think we have to tread a fine line. Vigano may be correct but we just don't know that and we risk the article implying connections that haven't been otherwise verified. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Leader of the conservative wing?

I'm confused why he's introduced with both his current prelate titles in the Roman Catholic Church and as "the leader of its conservative wing." This seems unnecessarily sensationalistic. He is not designated the leader of any such entity, despite what a few American journalists would peg him as in their search for a nemesis for (the Pope? the liberal wing?). I also don't believe the man is intending to lead a "wing" or that the conservative members of that wing are unified in following him. There's a potential media story about a "conservative coup" against the current Pontiff, and I fear this seeks to establish that impression unnecessarily, which may slant what follows in the article.

I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I didn't edit it out, no wishing to override what was perhaps someone else's better judgment here. Cathdohe (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cathdohe. Thank you for your note. A couple things. For one, after looking it over, I agree that we don't need to make such a statement in the opening sentence. Prominent liberal cardinals like Kasper, Marx, Cupich and Tobin aren't identified in the same way. Kasper is the only one who is mentioned as a leader of the liberal wing at all in the lead. That being said, the division of the Church into liberal and conservative wings is well-attested to by reliable sources. Burke is probably the most conspicuous conservative cardinal, and his actions that make him such are well-attested to in the sources that we use. That is why I didn't delete the content altogether. Instead, I moved it to the end of the second paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a good compromise - agree with this change. I think Burke is notable and prominent for his unofficial "leadership" of the "conservative wing". Not just in the US but with global impact. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Steve Bannon/Matteo Salvini

I'm a bit concerned about the bit in the views section about Bannon and Salvini—it seems to me that the source currently cited there, a Financial Times article, isn't sufficient. The FT article relates to Burke only tangentially, introducing him with "Cardinal Burke, for instance, who keeps company with figures such as Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former strategist, and Matteo Salvini, Italy’s far-right interior minister, [...]" (and later alluding to his "shrill moral stances"). I took this to be an evaluation of the ideologies of the three on the part of the article's author rather than a claim of actual association, and so edited "associated with" to "likened to". I see now that I misinterpreted the intent of the author, but I still think that the claim is overblown. Burke did meet with Bannon once in 2014, and with Salvini several times more recently; according to Ben Harnwell, Bannon and Burke have remained in correspondence, and both are backing Harnwell's institute. Perhaps it would be better to say explicitly "met and corresponded with"? It might also be useful to mention, separately, that the popular press ascribes to Burke an ideology similar to that of Bannon or Salvini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C1:4100:1141:20FA:9094:88F3:BE3C (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "popular press"? Who are we talking about? Contaldo80 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Contaldo80,
I left that comment back in my IP-editor days. I was responding to a line in the first paragraph of the views section that has since been removed, He has been associated with conservative political figures such as Donald Trump's former strategist Steve Bannon, and Matteo Salvini, the leader of the Italian Northern League party. I thought that 'associated with' was overly vague, overstated the extent of their interactions, and seemed in the context of that paragraph to imply that Burke had bought-in wholesale to the ideology of the other two. I also thought that the passing mention in the cited source wasn't sufficient to back the claim—by 'popular press', I meant that I would be happier with something like "The Financial Times [and other news sources] say that Burke is in kahoots with Bannon+Salvini", rather than leaving it in wikipedia's voice. I suppose it's a moot point now, though, since another editor removed that sentence entirely. (I have no objection at all to the treatment of Burke's interactions with Bannon and Salvini in the Islam and immigration subsection—I think that that section is well-sourced and well-written.) Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah perfect - much appreciated. Yes your line sounds sensible to me. The link with Salvini and Bannon seems to come up again and again so parts of the media are suggesting a connection between Burke's conservative ideology and that of the popular political right. I've just read a Vanity Fair article (https://www.google.com/search?q=vanity+fair+francis+benedict&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-NZ:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl) that "Take Matteo Salvini, the populist deputy prime minister of Italy and head of the right-wing Lega Party. Salvini has called for immigration control and the barring of illegal immigrants, and deplores Francis’s exhortations to welcome all refugees. Salvini, who is friendly with Steve Bannon and the anti-Francis cardinal Raymond Burke, has been photographed holding a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase IL MIO PAPA È BENEDETTO (“My Pope is Benedict”) and an image of a desperate-looking Francis". Contaldo80 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues - LifeSiteNews

It appears that LifeSiteNews is heavily relied upon in this article. LSN is by no means a reliable source for any claims, given its reputation for fabrication of stories, exaggerations, editorializing, and naked advocacy, rather than editorial oversight and fact-checking. Perhaps they can be trusted to report Burke's own words accurately; perhaps not. I suggest that this source (along with its claims) be removed entirely from the article, and that we resolve to seek only high-quality sources, which are indeed not difficult to find. Elizium23 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I find LifeSiteNews generally reliable for facts. They have an editorial policy on corrections and have issued corrections when appropriate. If there are specific claims in this article attributed to LSN that are in question, perhaps bring them up on the talk page to discuss. – Archer1234 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Your impression does not match the consensus currently formed at WP:RSN#RfC: LifeSiteNews, where most editors have determined that it "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail." Elizium23 (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I offered my opinion there previously. I'm not persuaded. WP:NOTAVOTE – Archer1234 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Raymond Leo Burke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lingzhi2 (talk · contribs) 21:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


{Disclosure: I am not Catholic.]

This article strikes me as being quite POV. It goes into very excessive detail (and by excessive I mean, "It needs to be trimmed more than a little") about his views and remarks concerning things which the left political wing of the US find offensive, but spends exactly zero time saying anything positive. For example, it mentions in the lede that he is considered a leader of the conservative wing of the Catholic church. Follow the link, what's the title of the source? "thousands sign a letter thanking him". But were those thousands of people mentioned? Absolutely not. This might be fair in the sense of being well-cited, but it is not fair in the sense of being balanced.

I would suggest that trimming be done. That seems more important than adding new details.

If I had come across this GAN not long after it was created, I would have simply Failed it out of hand. But since it has been unreviewed forever and an age, I can give it a little time for revision. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, thank you for taking this review. I must say that I am quite a bit surprised by your characterization of the article as biased against Burke. Full disclosure: I am a Traditional Catholic, the most conservative type of Catholic there is, and actually admire Burke. You have used as an example only one source in the lead. This source is not actually used for the sentence saying that Burke is seen as a leader of the Church's conservative wing but for the claim that he is "perceived as a voice of traditionalism." There is however this sentence: "He is frequently seen as the de facto leader of the Church's conservative wing." For this there are two sources. The first one is a Crux article. Crux is an independent news agency which is recognized as a reliable source for news in the Catholic Church. It identifies Burke as a leader of Francis's "conservative opposition." The next source is an article from The Guardian, which calls Burke "an arch-conservative."
All of the content in the article is sourced and seems relevant. I don't understand how an undue amount of space is dedicated to discussing any particular question at all. The question of whether his views are offensive is irrelevant. What matter is whether they are presented fairly and accurately. Presentation of Burke's statements is not positive or negative. It is simply an honest discussion of his positions. If you believe that the article is biased or needs trimming, can you please cite specific examples? I don't see any. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The article dwells upon his views too excessively. This article is not about the Traditionalist Catholic response to homosexuality, abortion, divorce. etc. It's about Burke. For one thing, I would suggest you need to find criticism of him and add it. Popular criticism would be best, but in-house criticism would be beneficial as well. For another, trim his views. The article largely reflects his views. As I said above, the question is NOT whether or not your observations are well-cited, it is POV and UNDUE. Spend time researching. Find stuff that is from sources where you haven't looked. Ummm, for example: " Burke doesn’t stop at merely arguing that women and girls are icky. He also lays the pedophile priest scandal at the feet of women..." Or whatever.
He denies being a leader of conservatives: "...[Burke] has long eschewed the title of opposition leader, and is on record as rejecting and repudiating any disloyalty to the Pope or disunity in the Church. '[I]t is a source of anguish for me,' Burke told this journalist in January of last year, 'people suggesting that I would lead a schism.'"
In essence, quote him less, quote others more. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Your initial comment indicated that the article was biased against Burke, and when I interpreted that as being what you meant, you did not deny it. Now you're saying that I need to find criticism of him. This seems contradictory. There is already plenty of criticism of him. The article discusses popular criticism of him during his time as Bishop of La Crosse. It also quotes other bishops expressing disagreement with various statements that he has made. There are criticisms of him from archbishops under "Opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage" and "Islam and immigration," and there could be more that I'm missing. That's plenty. Any more would be giving undue weight to criticism of Burke. Also, if we're going to add a lot more criticism to his page, we'd also have to add praise in order to maintain a balance. If we accompany that with the removal of discussions about things which Burke has said, very quickly the article becomes a summary of what different people think about Burke rather than Burke himself.
I think you need to explain how discussing Burke's views, in an article about Burke, is POV and undue. What you seem to be asking is that we cut down on discussing what Burke himself has to say about things while following up on each one of his statements with criticism from some left-wing blogger. That's what's POV and UNDUE. Like you said, the article is about Burke, which means that it should discuss HIS views, not those of other people.
I'm also perplexed that while you tell me that the article focuses too heavily on Burke and his views and comments, you have also linked to two separate articles reporting on his views and have directly quoted other comments from him. If you do not want me to add them, which is what I expect from your previous comments, what am I supposed to do with them? His comments on the alleged feminization of the Church are, by the way, already mentioned in the article under "Role of women in the Church and priest shortage." Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
In summary, quote him less and others more. That's fairly standard for such an article. Add sources praising him (I didn't see any), add sources critical of his views and actions. The emphasis on his own words is undue, the lack of praise is POV. Yes, it will be much easier to find criticism than praise. But it's important to try. What about charity work? What about praise from other conservatives? Must be stuff somewhere.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi2, again, I don't see how in an article about Burke, emphasis on Burke's words rather than those of other people is undue. You have not provided any concrete explanation for why you believe that what we have here is too much. I have no plans to eliminate any of the material about Burke's positions and public statements. If you are unwilling to back down here, I suggest asking for a second opinion. I could find two favorable things about Burke to add. The first was a statement that his aides during his tenure as Bishop of La Crosse said that he was warm and approachable in private. The other was a quote from Pope Francis in which he said, "I do not see Cardinal Burke as an enemy" and calling him an "excellent lawyer." I added both of these things and tried to find other stuff but couldn't. I think that there is now a more equal balance of praise and criticism article. Adding any more criticism would be undue. Display name 99 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(←) I apolgize if I have not been explaining myself well. Looking at WP:WIAGA, I think this article is very largely (at least half if not more) focused on what Burke thinks of the world. The "Views" section has several subsections and occupies more than half the article. However, there is almost nothing about what the world thinks of Burke. That would certainly violate point #3 of WIAGA and (I Think) also point #4. Perhaps add a section about.. not sure what the section would be called... it would be conceptually similar to the "Critical reception" section of a movie article, but certainly would not have that title... hmmm. But it needs more of what the world thinks of him. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, I just found a scathing editorial published about Burke by the National Catholic Reporter in July, and added some quote from it to the article, enough for a full paragraph. I think that this should help address your concerns. Although I have tried, I can find nothing else published in a any mainstream sources showing people praising him. The Pope Francis quote and the added content about what his aides in La Crosse had to say about him might be all we get. I'm not sure about the idea of a separate section. Content explaining what people think about Burke is sprinkled throughout the article. Some of it is from people in the Bishop of La Crosse section responding to his tenure there as bishop. There are other things scattered throughout "Views," which makes sense, because it is easier to understand these reactions if we place them alongside the discussions of what Burke said or did to provoke such a reaction, rather than in a totally separate section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. I had that thought too (that a separate section for criticism would be awkward) after I logged off, but had many family things to do.... I will re-read later tonight or today. Thank you for your patience. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This looks notable:

In recent months, critics have described him as an “ultraconservative fanatic,” “anti-Conciliar,” “in conspiracy against the Pope” and even ready for a schism should the upcoming family synod open up unwelcome changes.

The criticism has been so defamatory that in Italy several bishops have even refused to host his lectures in their dioceses. Where he has been allowed to give a conference — as recently in some cities in the north of Italy — there are invariably priests who oppose him and accuse him of spreading propaganda against the Pope.

— Cardinal Burke Responds to Recent Criticisms

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, I can see that as well. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
You might wanna link to Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ somewhere. Was any passage from the actual text quoted in Wikipedia? I dunno. Use your best judgment.
There are no direct quotes from the text in the article, but I've added the letter as a source. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmm? I thought I had removed all the italics from |publisher= and |newspaper=. Yes, I did, but they were re-added.. Please see: Help:CS1_errors#apostrophe_markup.
You did but then self-reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I self-reverted because of the whole |dead-url= flap. I need to go see whether they've reached any conclusion on that. You can fix the quotation marks, or I will later maybe today. The dead-url thing... as I said, I will look. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I put a "citation needed" tag on this sentence: "Specific passages in the declaration implicitly relate to several writings by Pope Francis, and most of them are seen as criticism or even opposition." I did that because I didn't notice any support for "most of them are seen as criticism or even opposition " in the cite at the end of that paragraph.
I removed the tag while replacing "most with "some." I added the National Catholic Reporter editorial as a source. Together, the two sources support the claim that some of the statements in the declaration were intrepreted as criticisms of Pope Francis. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In a related note, however, I think the WP:LEDE doesn't state clearly or strongly enough that Burke's statements are often seen as seen as direct opposition to the Pope.
I added the following sentence: "While Burke has denied allegations of being disloyal to Pope Francis, a number of statements that he has made have been interpreted as direct criticisms of the Pope, leading to a backlash from some Catholics directed at Burke." Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
IMO, the section header "Comments on the Mass" isn't informative enough. Maybe "Criticism of liturgical reform" or... I dunno, I'm not Catholic. Something a bit more informative, that includes the word "Criticism".
I replaced "Comments" with "Views" because the section also discusses Burke's role in performing traditional ordinations and, as I have just added, frequently offering the Traditional form of the Mass. These are not comments but actions. This is the reason why I do not favor adding the word "Criticism." In addition, the section quotes Burke's thoughts on Summorum pontificum, which he called "the most splendid contribution of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI." This certainly is not criticism, and I believe that a broader section title is necessary. Essentially, the section is broader than simply relaying Burke's criticisms of the implementation of the newer form of the Mass, even if these do make up more than half of the space. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
"Church-ese"–There are some phrases (and perhaps abbreviations) that seem to have special meaning that need to be unpacked for the uninitiated reader. Let's see:
  • what's a "model of accompaniment"
No idea. But it's part of a quote so people are going to have to interpret it as best they can. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • not in full communion with the Holy See
Changed communion to union, which seems like more general language, and linked Holy See. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • USCCB
Spelled out United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and put USCCB in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Linked to latter article. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And perhaps others? You'll have to put on your "non-Catholic" glasses and read as if you had no idea what the phrases etc. meant. Or perhaps ask a non-Catholic to do so. Yes, I know it's kinda difficult and tedious and may take more than a little time. For that reason, this won't be a sticking point in this review. Please fix the ones I listed here, and later after this review is over, please fix more. I won't say more about this point. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of others. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Lingzhi2. I'm still working through it. I'll get back to you within the next day. Display name 99 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi2, I'll get back to you right now actually. Please see above. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Church Militant

It is fairly well established that Church Militant is not a generally reliable source, certainly not something we can be citing in BLPs. Notably, they were prohibited from using the name "Catholic" by their bishop. They are a gossip-column and tabloid-quality source on a par with LifeSiteNews, and we all know what happened to that one. Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead

NonReproBlue, one of the sources also names John Kerry, whom Burke said when he ran for president in 2004 should not receive Holy Communion. The Tablet article reads: "The cardinal, a former Archbishop of St Louis, made headlines during the 2004 presidential election campaign by announcing he would deny communion to John Kerry and other Catholic politicians who supported legal abortion." Per WP:Recentism, there's no reason to single out Biden by name and not Kerry. Burke's position on Biden is no more notable for this biography than his position on Kerry or pro-abortion politicians in general. Therefore, the lead should omit names of specific politicans, referring only in general to Catholics who support legal abortion. Display name 99 (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. If this had been added in 2004 it would have been notable to mention John Kerry by name, because that is why it was getting press. The "and other Catholic politicians who supported legal abortion" is the part that may or may not be notable. As the source says, applying this to a presidential candidate is why it "made headlines". Now he is getting press because, as the sources point out, he is saying this about Biden. It isn't notable otherwise. I don't see anything in WP:Recentism that indicates that we should censor mention of the person he was directly speaking about when he says that America's second ever Catholic president should be denied communion. It is only notable because he said it about Biden. That's why you don't see news articles discussing this without mentioning Biden. If you can find current sources that discuss this without mentioning Biden, I would be receptive to changing my view, but as far as I can tell every every current source that mentions this does so in relation to Biden, so we should too. Trump was supportive of abortion rights for many years, including advocating for abortions in cases of rape and incest as recently as 2016, at which point Burke still supported him, so who he chooses to publicly chastise and say that Catholics "may not vote for" is indeed notable and germane to this article. NonReproBlue (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump's previous views on abortion are irrelevant. Since before he began his campaign for president, Trump has taken a mostly anti-abortion position. What he said about abortion decades before is no matter. As far as rape and incest, for which Trump still favors abortion, Burke would presumably allow for voting for a candidate whom he believed to be wrong on some issues if he believed another candidate to be far worse. Rape and incest account for a tiny fraction of abortions, so one could argue that a vote for Trump would be licit in order to try to stop the remainder of abortions from taking place, which Biden would allow to be carried out. The 2020 election just ended, so of course articles written within the last few months are going to mention Biden. But Burke didn't make his statement about Biden until late September. Therefore, any article written before September would not mention Biden. There's a 16-year period in which the only example that there was of Burke stating that Catholics should not vote for a presidential candidate and that the candidate could not receive Holy Communion was Kerry. If 16 years of sources failed to mention Biden whereas only three months of sources did, it would not be incumbent on us to do so. What WP:Recentism indicates is that we should not mention Biden without mentioning Kerry. Then, we'd arguably have to mention "other Catholic politicians who support legal abortion," or something of that nature. Then it would just get out of hand. That's why we shouldn't name any specific people.
There's a case to be made that Burke's statements on Kerry are actually more notable than what he said about Biden. In 2004, unlike 2020, Burke had a diocese to run. As the body of the article details, Burke issued a pastoral leter to the people in the Archdiocese of St. Louis advising them not to vote for candidates who supported abortion. Because the bishop is supposed to act as a moral and spiritual authority over those who are in his diocese, what he did had the potential to have a very strong impact on the consciences of Catholics. Whereas, in 2020, as he is no longer bishop of a diocese, he can do little more than put out letters through the media and give interviews. The people who will be reading or listening to those are mostly conservative-leaning Catholics who already agreed with him anyway. Other people in the Church mostly would not hear them. On the contrary, his pastoral letter in 2004 reached a much more diverse group of people and therefore likely had more of an impact. Display name 99 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that Burke told Catholics in 2008 not to vote for Obama. This is also in the article body. That's three presidential candidaes: Kerry, Obama, and Biden. Only mentioning Biden gives the misleading notion that Burke was not making these sorts of statements before 2020, which he was. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It is only notable because it is currently getting press. It is only getting press currently because he applies it to Biden. All reliable sources support this. It is very simple. Recentism doesn't indicate "that we should not mention Biden without mentioning Kerry". If anything the fact that Kerry didn't win is why Recentism means we shouldn't mention Kerry, because no one cares what he once said about a failed candidate. However Biden did win, and that means it will almost certainly have continued notability. Once again, the only pertinent fact is that he is now directly referring to Biden, and every current source emphasizes that. If he were not talking about Biden, it wouldn't be making headlines and it wouldn't be notable. We don't strip the notable parts out of what reliable sources are currently reporting just because of something he said 16 years ago. If you feel it pressingly important to mention Kerry as well, go for it. I won't object, even if I think it is less notable. But removing reference to Biden is not in line with policy, as Biden is literally the only thing that makes his statements about this notable. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The only reason it might give an impression that he wasn't making these statements previously is because you removed the language indicating that this was part of his longstanding support of Republicans. You say that it was because it isn't in the sources, but not all information in the lead has to be directly cited, it is also a summary of the cited material in the body of the article, which makes it abundantly clear that he has consistently been a supporter of Republicans and Republican candidates, and consistently hostile to their Democratic opponents. You can't complain about a problem that you created. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that you've familiarized yourself with Wikipedia policy. Per WP:NotNews, Wikipedia does not add material simply because it is receiving a lot of news coverage at the moment while not adding content that received similar news coverage before simply because a lot of time has gone by since. People did care very much about what Burke said about Kerry at the time that he said it. There's nothing more notable about Burke telling Catholics not to vote for a self-professed Catholic who supports abortion in 2020 than there was in 2004. In fact, I made an an argument for why 2004 may have been more notable. You glossed over that in your response. WP:Recentism means that we shouldn't ignore something just because it's not as important now. And what about Burke telling people not to vote for Obama in 2008? Obama won, so is that notable? Would you support including three people's names? And how about when the next Democratic nominee is chosen and Burke chooses, as he probably will if he is still around, to say something similar about that person? Would you be okay moving it up to four names? When does it get out of hand?
You are incorrect in your assessment of the language that I removed. Burke has said many favorable things about Trump. I do not know where you got your ideas to the contrary, but he does not have a history of making similarly supportive statements about other Republican politicians. He opposed Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008, but he didn't endorse Bush or McCain. Burke has a record of telling people who they shouldn't vote for, but with the possible exception of Trump, he's done little to give them advice about who they should vote for. Display name 99 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough about directly endorsing candidates, but the body of the article indicates that he has very clearly advocated against every Democratic nominee since at least 2004. I would be fine saying something along the lines of he has been "Consistently hostile towards the Democratic party, (per the fact that he has said it "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death'"), and has opined that politicians who support abortion rights, specifically Democratic presidential candidates including John Kerry, Barak Obama, and Joe Biden, should not receive communion and that Catholics may not vote for them." I have no problem mentioning all three in the lead, what I am against is removing Biden because it is certainly notable. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Given his age, I doubt that there will be many more examples to add to the list, let alone enough that it gets "out of hand". I would suggest that the easiest solution, in my opinion, is for the lead to name the politician who is currently most notable, and leave the historical examples in the body. So if this happens again, Biden will be strictly in the body and whoever he is making press for railing against at that time gets the mention in the lead. But I am totally fine with mentioning them all in the lead if you think mentioning only the most recent gives some sort of misleading impression. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem here (and with the current article text) is that Burke never specifically said that Catholics should not vote for Biden. The interview about Biden was only about Holy Communion. Burke said that Catholics couldn't vote for Kerry or Obama, and no doubt he thinks the same about Biden as well, but we can't imply that he did because he never explicitly said it on record. I could agree to something like that only if you could find a source with him telling people not to vote for Biden. Otherwise, I would have to stand by my position not to name anyone. I'd be fine with adding that he's hostile towards the Democratic Party. I'm off to sleep now. I'll check back here in the morning. Display name 99 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It's in the sources already present. "Cardinal Burke told Fox that “no practicing Catholic” could vote for a pro-choice politician and that pro-choice candidates like Biden should be denied Communion." It is not Original Research or Synthesis to arrive at the conclusion that if he says they can't vote for any pro-choice candidate, and at the same time labels Biden as a pro-choice candidate, that he is saying they can't vote for Biden. It is simply logic. That would be like saying that a source which said "Burke turned 20 years old on June 30, 1968" could not be used as a source to say that he was born on June 30, 1948. It is simply logic, no reasonable person would ever conclude that the two simultaneous statements of "You can't vote for pro-choice politicians. Biden is a pro-choice politician" leave ambiguity as to whether or not he believes they can vote for Biden. Anyhow, there are other sources that directly make the connection if you are truly uncomfortable with that logic. Catholics shouldn’t vote for Biden, former La Crosse bishop says "Former La Crosse Bishop Raymond Burke, who was elevated to cardinal in 2010, discredits Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s standing as a Catholic and says the faithful shouldn’t vote for him." NonReproBlue (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
NonReproBlue, very well. If we have to name Biden, I'd like to name Kerry as well. Kerry is more notable than Obama because of his faith. I could live with something like this: "Burke has been consistently hostile towards the Democratic party, and has opined that Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion, including presidential candidates John Kerry and Joe Biden, should not receive the Eucharist and that Catholics may not vote for them." Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I would be totally fine with that. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The recent changes by display name 99 strike me as odd and politically motivated. It is on the verge of being vandalism of the page. I would suggest reverting these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.189.149 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raymond_Leo_Burke/Archive_1&oldid=1214918813"