Talk:Raymond Leo Burke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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-

[edit] 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-

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/y/Talk%7ERaymond_Leo_Burke_4f34.html"