Talk:Raymond Leo Burke

Vandalism

I guess based on current media attention due to Burke's support of conspiracy theories regarding Covid Vaccination as well as his own hospitalization at least one person is interested in adding some non-neutral/inflammatory stuff to this article, specifically User talk:69.119.123.193. Can somebody with some authority/knowledge on how to handle this do something about this. Apologies if this is the wrong way to handle this, I just stumbled upon this and saw my attempts to revert the references to him as a Creep and Pharisee undone almost immediately 2A02:810B:1040:38A0:24A9:D562:2BFD:DE09 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree vandalism appears to be a problem, I recommend making this page protected with only ones with accounts can edit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It does seem that most, but not all, of the unconstructive edits are coming from IP editors, but there are also constructive edits coming from IP editors. At this point, it does not seem to me to be bad enough to request semi-protection. However, as an auto-confirmed user, you can request that through twinkle. If you haven’t got twinkle, you can enable it yourself. See WP:TW. Constant314 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Cell lines

The article currently states: Burke said that […] it is "never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses." These remarks are misleading; the effectiveness of Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna vaccines was testing using cell lines derived from fetal tissue taken from elective abortions decades earlier (in the 1970s and 1980s). I cannot see what would be misleading in his statement, because he speaks about the vaccine development having included the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses; and the supposed correction in the second sentence also speaks about the vaccine's testing (that's the only difference I see, but isn't that a part of "development"?) having included the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses. When I read it, I could not see in what his statement contradicts the sourced claim in that second sentence. If no substantial difference is pointed out, I propose the second sentence to be deleted, leaving only the first one (the statement attributed to him). --Blahma (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Pope Francis wants to take away the house and salary of the cardinal, defined as his enemy

sourced here 87.8.120.180 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NAC Class of 1975

@Display name 99: RE your reversion of my addition concerning the NAC class of 1975.

"This link is just to a list of articles, none of which that I found seem to be about this."

From the Pillar article I cited: "By my count — and thanks to the current NAC seminarian who helped me get a class list — there were ten bishops chosen from the North American College’s Class of 75, including three cardinals: (Cardinal) Cupich, Zurek, Hoeppner, Cote, Mulvey, Kagan, (Leonard) Blair, (Cardinal) Harvey, Provost, and (Cardinal) Burke." -- Which seems to be very pertinent to the article at hand.

"Also, don't put a link in between two pieces of text cited to the same source without adding another link to the earlier source before the new text that you add; it corrupts text to citation integrity."

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but would be open to implementing it if you could explain it further.

Edit: Shifting discussion of this to your talk page following similar reversions on other pages.

Maximilian775 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)