Talk:Luigi Ventura

January 2019 opened investigation
I suggest to add a paragraph about the significant January 2019 event. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV). With sources.



Francewhoa (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you source has a single graf about this story buried inside another story. We already have better sources. And to say he hasn’t commented is not quite right. He has denied the charges and met with several of the accusers. What you’ve added uses an ill-informed source to make a broad misleading statement. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarify two types of resignations: Quick or long
I suggest to add a sentence to clarify the two types of resignation. They are either quick or kept longer. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable sources.



Francewhoa (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Same day as Francis’ abuse reforms
I suggest to add a sentence about the fact that the resignation was announce the same day as Francis’ abuse reforms on December 17th, 2019. With notable source.



Francewhoa (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First point: quick or long seems beside the point when what matters is that it was expected (as we already say) because Ventura already stopped doing his job.
 * Second, the fact that he put a few sex abuse related items into a single news cycle is worth mentioning, but I’m waiting for a source to say that, rather than the source you’ve cited which doesn’t make the point. Your source makes it sound like a curious thing, which is rather lame. Within a day or two someone writing an actual analysis piece will note that there was some news management going on. And as I say that, that fact has nothing to do with Ventura. It’s interesting from the angle: how is the Vatican managing public perception of its handling of this stuff. At least that’s how it looks to me. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)