# Talk:Raymond Leo Burke

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)

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

@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)

Rogermx, I am undoing your recent edit. Per WP:Edit summary, editors are supposed to explain the reasons for their edits, especially when altering or removing existing content. This you have consistently failed to do. Here are my problems. You have too many small sections. Sections that only have a section or two should generally be avoided. It makes the article too chopped up. There are additional issues. Your edits violate WP:Overlinking, as you added a link to Pope John Paul II even though his name was linked just a few paragraphs ahead. I also generally don't find it helpful in biographies to include pictures of people other than the person whom the biography is about. This is especially the case here, as the two pictures that you added were not of people who are mentioned frequently in the article. Boeselager in particular was only mentioned once. There were several people who were mentioned more than him and who would thus be more deserving of having their pictures included. Pontifical Solemn High Mass should be capitalized. Other aspects of your changes may not necessarily have harmed the article but did not appear to help.
Per WP:Onus, it is on you to obtain consensus for these changes, and you should not restore them to the article until you do. Display name 99 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I have restored this article because I do not believe in reverting articles unless there is vandalism. If you do not agree with my changes, I welcome you to make these changes and I will leave them as is.
If you do not like my short paragraphs, change them. My experience is that readers do not enjoy a long slog. If you disagree with my pictures, remove them. If I overlinked something, I plead guilty. When I find articles with that sin, I remove them without reverting the whole article. You may think my other edits fail to help the article, but I disagree. This article was a mishmash of cut and paste references without any real organization or continuity of wording. It was missing dates for many events, which I supplied, and there was repetition of content.
I never revert edits that other people have made unless it is clear vandalism. WP:ONUS applies to disputed content, not decisions on style, paragraph formation, or the creation of sections. I don't need to ask other editor as to many paragraphs I create or what pictures I insert.  Like I said before, I welcome you to make any changes that you want to this article and I will leave them be. If you revert it again, I will restore it again. Rogermx (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Because I objected to many of your changes, the content is disputed. If you disagree with the problems that I have identified, you can argue that here. Otherwise, you can restore some of the changes that you made while not restoring the ones to which I objected. It is your job to have consensus to restore the disputed content, not mine to have consensus to keep it out. I encourage you to restore the aspects of the changes that you made to which I did not object here. If you revert me again, I will report you for edit warring. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Rogermx, stop edit warring and, if you wish to continue advocating for your changes, discuss them on the talk page. I have criticized many elements of your edits, and you have not responded to them. Forcibly reinserting your changes over the objections of another editor is contrary to the rules of Wikipedia.
Regarding my specific concerns about your alterations, one-sentence paragraphs should be used "sparingly", per WP:PARAGRAPH. You added multiple one-sentences paragraphs, which certainly appears to be contrary to what that policy states. Maybe you made some changes that helped, but I find that many were clearly unhelpful, and you need to take consideration of that. Again, per ONUS, you should not restore material to the article that has been disputed by another editor without consensus. I am also unaware of how the article repeated material; please feel free to clarify. Display name 99 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
You also butchered the discussion of the Saint Stanislaus church dispute in the section on Burke's tenure as Archbishop of Saint Louis. The previous version had it all confined to one paragraph so that it could easily be understood. But in your version, you broke it into two paragraphs and added unrelated content between them. The second paragraph started with: "In 2012, four years after Burke left St. Louis, the St. Louis Circuit Court ruled against the diocese." The reader at first glance probably will not know what this means due to the previous paragraph being unrelated. They will then have to remind themselves of what they had read before.
Again, maybe a few changes were helpful, but your edit was clearly a net negative to the article as a whole. Display name 99 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and you added a sentence to the end of the section on Burke's tenure as Archbishop of Saint Louis and did not include a source. Display name 99 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
You do what you want with the article. I am no longer interested in editing it.
I am sick and tired of negative editors who are too lazy to make the changes they want to an article, but will simply revert it to try to force the other editor to make them. Amazingly, you find plenty of energy to nitpick for mistakes. If you like, I would be glad to return the favor on one of your articles. Rogermx (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Rogermx, you're too irresponsible to be bothered to put a citation at the end of a sentence, and yet you're calling me lazy simply because I don't feel that it's my job to sort through a mountain of poor and damaging changing for the sake of trying to salvage something that might not be a complete trainwreck? You want me to spend my time to do the work of undoing your bad changes while carefully preserving anything that might be half-decent rather than fixing your mistakes yourself. That is the definition of narcissism and entitlement. Grow up. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes,you are lazy and non-collegial. If you had asked me to make some of your original changes, I would have probably done them. If you had made the changes yourself, I would have let them stand. Instead, you chose to simply revert the article and trash everything I added to simply justify your lack of consideration and arrogance. Reading your user page, I have a better understand of your mentality. One thing I can tell you that I have never been blocked on Wikipedia. Rogermx (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Cool. You probably should be. Goodbye. Display name 99 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)