Talk:Thomas Vose Daily

Questions about this article
A few points about this article. First, Thomas Vose Daily was not an archbishop; the bishop of Brooklyn is not an archbishop, but a bishop.

Second, all Catholic bishops must resign when they reach age 75, and Daily was 75 when he resigned. So was the resignation due to age or criticism from the Massachusetts Attorney General? Or both? Is there a citation? This article seems to imply a connection.

Lastly, I don't understand how the Massachusetts Attorney General could criticize Daily for the way that Daily handled sex abuse cases in Boston in 2003. This article says that Daily had been bishop of Palm Beach in 1984 and Brooklyn from 1990 to 2003. So what was he doing working back in Boston in 2003? Have I misread the sentence, or is the date wrong? I'm assuming he was probably criticized for his work when he was a bishop of Boston from 1975 to 1984. He was appointed in December 1974 and installed in February 1975; the article says that he was appointed in 1973.

Some additional resources:

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bdaily.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_Roman_Catholic_dioceses_of_the_United_States

I'll change the references from archbishop to bishop. I'll also fix the date of this appointment to bishop. I also think the article should have a citation about his resignation, and include the name of the Massachusetts Attorney General. Craig.borchardt 17 February 2007.
 * The article listed actually listed him as an archbishop, and I followed what it said there. Stupidly, I threw away the printout containing the information after I finished the article. I'll try to get another one today or tomorrow and insert all the requested material then. John Carter 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Responses to the points raised above. The report by the Attorney General seems to have been issued in 2003, but would have dealt with all the cases of abuse which had been presented, which given the lag time which seems to have been common in these instances very likely would have covered a much earlier time. Also, remember 2003 was when the sex abuse issue was most prominent in the public eye, and a report issued at that time very likely would have addressed the often much earlier instances getting media attention at the time as well. The stated original source for the statement is page B1 of the July 24, 2003, New York Times. Page B4 of the August 2, 2003, edition is given as the source of the statement regarding Daily's resignation. Unfortunately, I can't find an original copy of the Times for either date to verify the stories. John Carter 15:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi John Carter,

Thanks for your follow up. The problem with using the New York Times as a citation is that the link is not always publicly available; users who don't have a subscription can't access it. Also, I think the article should still say who the attorney general was who issued the report.

The edit to add the dates makes the timeline much more clear. Thanks.

Craig.borchardt 3 March 2007.
 * Granted. The original source was the Gale Biography Resource Center website, which has that same problem. That's why I listed the published book the website article was drawn from and not the website initially. However, the Gale website did not specify who the AG was, and, considering the office consists of more than person, I think it would be presumptuous of me to give the name of the AG if the report were in fact prepared by a subordinate. John Carter 21:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I think that's why we need a citation here. If someone in the attorney general's office released a report, I assume that the attorney general would stand behind it. Or maybe the article should refer to the a report from "attorney general (name of person)'s office". I just think that either there is a citation for something such as this, or the sentence should be removed. A lot of attorneys general did investigations and made statements during this time, so I would think citations would exist.


 * Craig.borchardt 12 March 2007.

Allegations
I have removed material from 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 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)