Talk:Marcel Lefebvre/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Well written

Y The article is well written.

Verifiable with no original research

N The main problem of the article are very clear: 70% of the sources are either primary (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the defense of Lefebvre or his work who have no academic credential (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre). For an example of primary sources being used, when it comes to the life of Lefebvre, sometimes the source is himself, in some talks he made which were compiled in an article titled "Monsignor Lefebvre in his own words" and published by the SSPX. All those sources are taken at face value in the article.

Some parts of the article do not have a source to support them. For example, the part of the lede "In 1975, after a flare of tensions with the Holy See, Lefebvre was ordered to disband the society, but ignored the decision" does not seem to be in the article, nor in the primary sources given at the end of the lede

Broad in its coverage

Y The article is properly detailed, although as I said above the quality of the source sorely lacks sometimes.

Neutral

Y The article is neutral in its tone.

Stable

N The article has substantially changed from the time it was passed as a GA.

Illustrated

Y The article is properly illustrated.

Miscellanous

12 days ago, I warned the WikiProjects Catholicism and Christianity of my intention to reassess this article. A user on WProject Christianity cleaned up the article a fair bit, and thereafter stated he/she had finished his/her improvements, and that the article was still a long way from being up to the current GA's standards and did not object the reassessment. Therefore, despite the fact I warned a WProject related to the article and waited quite some time, the improvements made to the article did not improve the article enough to turn it into what could be accepted as a GA by today's standards on WP.
Veverve (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• @Veverve: Just a reminder that this is still open. Aircorn (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Also it doesn't matter for stabilty purposes if the article has changed since it was first promoted, as long as those changes don't sufficiently reduce the quality of the article. OIn fact a bigger issue with GA's is them not being updated. Aircorn (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Aircorn: Thanks. I have been expecting some comments from @Bmclaughlin9: for about a month. If the user has not commented by 1 November, then I will remove this article's GA status. Veverve (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• The poor quality of the sourcing should suffice to justify the withdrawal of GA. The sourcing is accurately described by user Veverve. I will not belabor the point. I've done a lot of work trying to improve the article, but I've not gotten far. I've tried to avoid controversy by concentrating on ML's activities before 1962.
• The writing is sub-standard, starting with the extensive use of block quotes to present material easily summarized, sometimes already summarized. The section headed "Background", itself an apologia by ML's fans, is the worst example of this. (That section's tone is neutral, but its substance is not. It's a very difficult subject to cover succinctly: the Church in France since the French Revolution.) The two long quotes in "Breaking of the agreement" are no better. There is weasel language like "Lefebvre was associated with the following positions". Associated? He took positions and advocated on behalf of his views in provocative language, pulling no punches. The article as its stands reduces feisty argument and polemics to "views".
• And there are gaps in coverage. Lefebvre's name was removed from the drafting committee described in the paragraph beginning "The CIP was especially concerned..." but the fact that it took a protest by a dozen cardinals (a key moment in the history of the Council) to make that happen is not mentioned. And Lefevbre's views at the time of the Council are not covered. What did he believe, assert or do that so aroused those cardinals and, in the following paragraphs, the bishops of the Holy Ghost Fathers and the General Convention of that order?
• ML's exchange of views with Ratzinger on the interpretation of the Council's documents is mentioned without any description of its substance. Nor is his remarkable attack on JPII's prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986 ("an immeasurable, unprecedented scandal"), though the "spirit of Assisi" is mentioned and wikilinked without any way for the reader to grasp what ML means.
• The article's summary could be picked apart for omissions and inaccuracies on his return to Europe, his resignation as head of his order, and the timing of his appointment to the Council's preparatory body, but the worst bit is probably this weasel: "He later took the lead in opposing certain changes within the church associated with the council". "Associated" avoids saying "what the Council taught" and what Popes Paul and JPII were doing. The phrase "changes within the church" doesn't begin to do justice to the issues: ecumenism, religious liberty and the right of conscience should not be buried in language that allows the uninformed reader to imagine we're talking about the Latin Mass.
• Developing a quality article on such a controversial figure presents us with a great challenge. We do WP an injustice if we accept this article as it stands as anything more than a work in progress much in need of improvement. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Well, it has been more than one month since I have made this GAR, and it appears nobody objects removing the GA status from this article, so I will remove it. Veverve (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)