Talk:Marcel Lefebvre

Archbishop?

If Lefebvre is in fact excommunicate, should he still retain his title as Archbishop? Leave a message on my talk page to discuss.. --V. Joe 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Lefebvre's title, 'Archbishop' was, at the time of his excommunication, an honorary one, attached to his person, not to an office. It was received at the time he was appointed Bishop of Tulle. He was the 'Archbishop-bishop' of Tulle. He had of course, been Archbishop of Dakar in his own right, but never referred to himself as such after his tensure there was over.So technically, it is title of honour and not attached to a particular jurisdiction. Excommunication deprives a cleric of an office. Since he did not possess or lay claim to an office at the time of his censure he did not lose the title which was purely personal and honorific.One might argue however, that upon being excommunicated (or perhaps even when he was suspended a divinis) he lost the titular Archdiocese of Synnada-in-Phrygia. This is arguable since a titular title is, by definition, also purely honorific. Confused? Yes, only the Roman Church can invent such legal niceties! Ex-Lefebvrite priest, 3-6-06

Excommunication (or suspension) of a cleric does not automatically deprive him of his office. (Deprivation of office is dealt with separately, in canon 1336.) What if the bishop of a see were to fall under excommunication not reserved to the Holy See for reasons other than defecting from the faith or from communion with the Church: when the excommunication is lifted, would the Pope have to be asked to reappoint him to his see?

If at the time of the illicit ordinations Lefebvre held the office of bishop of an active see, he would, I suppose, have lost that office because of canon 194 ("one who has publicly defected from ... from communion with the Church ... (is) removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself." That removal from office and the automatic excommunication would, each of them individually, be effects of Lefebvre's schismatic act. Neither effect would be the cause of the other.

Of course, according to Catholic teaching about the sacramental character or seal, a bishop excommunicated and deprived of ecclesiastical office remains a bishop. The "arch-" part of "archbishop" does not designate an office, and so does not come under canon 194.

Lima 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, should the post-nominal letters not be 'SSPX' rather than those of the Holy Ghost Fathers? Carolynparrishfan 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did he cease to be a member of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost Fathers)? Lima 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed the last two paragraphs as they fit on the SSPX entry, but not here:

The Society claims that Catholics may attend its chapels "without worrying that they may be in schism by doing so".<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/sdavies.htm Abp. Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X] by Michael Davies</ref><ref>[http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm QUESTION 12 Isn't the SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X schismatic?] from FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS about the Society of Saint Pius X, hosted by Society of Saint Pius XII in the United States of America</ref> The Holy See has, on several occasions, stated that such attendance is in normal circumstances "morally illicit" for Catholics, because the priests of the Society, being illicitly ordained, are by canon law automatically suspended from priestly functions, and because of the danger of imbibing schismatic ideas from them.<ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM STATUS OF SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X MASSES] by the Commission Ecclesia Dei</ref> <ref>[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html Is the Society of St. Pius X in Schism? A Recent Response from Rome] by John Loughnan</ref> <ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X] by Msgr Camille Perl, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei</ref>

The repeated declarations by the Holy See that the feelings of Catholics who find the traditional rites more fulfilling are to be respected demonstrate that it does not oppose attendance at the Tridentine Mass as such, but only celebrations by priests suspended by law and who, in some cases, teach that the Holy See has in practice abandoned the Catholic faith. Priests such as the members of the [[Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter]] who maintain full [[Communion (Christian)|communion]] with the Pope and the local bishops are given official authorization to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. The Society of St Pius X, on its part, disapproves of attendance at Mass celebrated by such priests, who declare their acceptance of all the decrees of the Second Vatican Council – which SSPX members cannot do.

I certainly concur. There is way too much in this article which is not specifically about Lefebvre but rather about the SSPX. Obviously there is an overlap, but .... Noel S McFerran 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that before his death anything to do with SSPX was to do with Lefebvre. It's only the stuff after his death where we need to employ a gimlet eye. JASpencer 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistory quote

The Consistory web page is in Latin, and there's no problem with that. However if using a foreign language source web page, there really should be a translation of the relevant areas. (See WP:RS). Could this be done as a quote?

If there's an English language source that would be prefered as WP:V states "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."

JASpencer 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Latin quote. Is it possible to have a translation of this in English? WP:CITE says "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." That's why I'm reinserting the request quote template.JASpencer 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised that, while English translations of SSPX 1970s documents abound on the Internet, translations (though these will doubtless have appeared in print media of the time) of Holy See documents do not. The Church side is not the side that protests too much.

After having Googled up so many quotations that the requester could have Googled himself, and that in some cases I felt were quite unnecessary, I do not feel inclined to undertake translation work also. When things finally settle down, I may perhaps be better disposed. Lima 15:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I am giving myself an immediate rest from dealing even with these requests. Lima 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed text on Holy Ghost Fathers

I've removed the following text:

Lefebvre first instituted a major reform of the seminaries run by the Holy Ghost Fathers. He transferred several professors whom he considered too liberal to non-educational posts. He ordered books by certain contemporary theologians, including [[Yves Congar]] and [[Chenu|Marie-Dominique Chenu]] to be removed from the seminary library, finding them too Neo-Modernistic.

It has the ring of truth about it but I can find nothing on the internet on this so I can't cite it.

JASpencer 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

Congratulations on a well documented, clear, thorough, and neutral toned article! I've promoted the article to GA status. Next step would be a peer review. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing uncited material

I will be removing the following material in a couple of days if there are no citations:

1. 25 May 1929 he was ordained deacon by Cardinal Basilio Pompilj in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome
2. Even before this, Lefebvre had already asked to be released for missionary duties as a member of the Holy Ghost Fathers.
3. But the cardinal insisted that he consider this for a year while he engaged in parish work in the diocese of Lille.
4. El Blakiyeh
5. In his new position Lefebvre was responsible for the Catholic Church in the part of Senegal north of Gambia.
6. lay brothers,
7. the number of parishes
8. With this new responsibiity, it was appropriate that he have the title of archbishop
9. Pope Pius XII wanted to move quickly towards a proper hierarchy (dioceses with bishops, instead of vicariates and apostolic prefectures).
10. including the first indigenous bishops in French Africa.
11. Lefebvre was not among those made cardinal by John XXIII in December of that year. (The citation I want is about it's notability, not the fact itself).
12. and his ability to deal with the Roman Curia.
13. He would later say that it had become impossible for him to remain Superior of an Order which no longer wanted or listened to him.
14. thereby officially dissolving the Society.
15. In a sermon in June 1987 Lefebvre, now aged 81, announced his intention to consecrate a bishop to carry on his work after his death.
16. Lefebvre came to the view that he was obliged to ordain a successor, if necesary without papal approval.
17. Lefebvre declared that he had not withdrawn his submission to the Pope and that the crisis in the Church justified the consecrations
18. although the Holy See rejects this argument as Lefebvre had been served with express canonical warnings
19. from cancer

If these assertions don't have citations in two days I will start deleting them. If anyone wants me to hold off a particular assertion then please let me know.

I'll hold off if it's in an offline book, but only to give some time, not for ever.

JASpencer 09:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given up the heavy thankless task of finding citations for JASpencer and do not intend to begin again; but I will ask whether he would accept "thereby officially dissolving the Society as a body recognized in canon law", or some such phrase? He probably would not, since he has asked for citations to justify many other seemingly obvious conclusions of the accepted statements in the text. On the other hand, I am surprised he hasn't asked for citations for so many statements under "Second Vatican Council" and elsewhere that, so far, have escaped. Lima 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that getting to Good Article status is thankless. I don't, and I appreciate the work you've done. If you want to change the policy at WP:V go ahead and try, however this is not the place to do this.

JASpencer 13:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly do not want to change policy, and I do recognize that the way some implement policy may seem idiosyncratic to others. Lima 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the sentences you have identified. You have totally misunderstood the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The policy does not require that each individual phrase be supported by a particular footnote. It does not say that phrases which are not individually footnoted should be removed - although it does say that unsourced material may be challenged and removed. JASpencer has already removed a number of important facts from the article all of which come from Tissier de Mallerais' biography. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia:Verifiability which requires that these be individually footnoted. The footnotes which have been created are NOT the sources of this information; they are merely other webpages which say the same thing. In many cases the footnotes provided actually REDUCE the reliability of the information. The footnotes are often to anonymous undated non-scholarly webpages; in a few cases it's perfectly possible that they got their information from the Wikipedia article. This is NOT what verifiability is all about. I speak from experience as a librarian of almost twenty years experience who works at the largest and most prestigious university in Canada. Noel S McFerran 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Noel is absolutely right. Anyone interested may wish to skim through Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability in addition to carefully reviewing WP:V. A statement without a footnote is not necessarily unsourced. For example, if the material in an entire paragraph comes from one or two sources, then you only need a couple of footnotes for the paragraph - not one for each sentence. The same would apply to the entire article; if most of the information comes from just a few sources, then you may only need just a few footnotes. WP:V definitely does not say that every statement must be sourced. It does not even say that every fact must be sourced. dryguy 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to what is going on here. Where is this style of quote large amounts of the sources coming from? I have not yet come across this idea that not only should editors reference their sources but they should do the fact checking as well within the article. I know these sorts of ideas do not just appear out of the blue, so help me understand the roots of this movement by giving me some links please. I cannot comment much on this until I can claim to understand it. But it does strike me as ridiculous. Is this stuff actually disputed or contraversial? I just don't understand the overkill here. On the other hand it is being done in the proper way being brought up on the talk page and all. Also for the most part these things should appear in one of the sources. I just question if the resulting footnotes are really approriate. Do you realize the amount of fair use text you now have this page just from the Sermon on the occasion of the Episcopal Consecration? I worry if this trend continues we may enter copyright problems by reproducing such a large portion of the more concise sources. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that a lot of the references here are to the same article repeated many times. In cases like this, I think it is appropriate not to have footnotes for it on every occurrence (and certainly not to quote the text that supports the point) but to simply give it as a general reference for the entire article. It helps improve the readability of the text. JulesH 06:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it looks like we need an RFC on this. JASpencer 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. In my opinion the above interpretations of WP:V are simply wrong. Unsourced facts can be challenged and removed. Facts which do not have a citation are unsourced. So it follows that uncited facts can be removed. So WP:V does say that every fact should be sourced. This is the subject of the RFC.

2. The citations that were inserted could be improved, I do not doubt that. However they were an improvement on what had gone before - which were no citations.

3. No matter what books were in people's heads, they were not in this article. Saying that you read any book before you wrote the article is nice, but it does not mean that the article meets WP:V. If you want to keep the fact insert the citation.

4. Quotes are simply best practice, so that a reader can do part of the fact checking within the article. They are not necesary for a citation, but they are not forbidden. In my opinion they make for a more reliable source. This is especially so for books, rather than websites. I don't think a big thing needs to be made about quotes.

JASpencer 11:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Unsourced fact may be challenged or removed. But the difference of opinion here is over which method to use. Obviously the less mainstream or more speculative (Foo believed . . .) the statement the closer we move toward removal. The more mundane {Foo was ordained on such a date) the statement the closer we lean towards leaving it challenged. Wikipedia is not a race it is a work in progesss, we can work on getting sources for things most likely to be correct.

2 & 3 I think the core problem here is how "citation" is being defined. Can everyone work here to provide links to the places were they gained thier ideas ideas about what a citation is?

4. I think quotes can be useful in the references in some cases. I think putting quotes in as much as possible is a bad idea. Use quotes when the information is surprising or contraversial or differs between sources. Please do not confuse referencing with fact checking. They are totally different processes. This is not actually allowing fact-checking because really someone just wrote the quote on a wiki so the quote itself requires fact-checking. Quotes do not make the source any more reliable than having references without quotes. And honestly I wonder if it makes people more likely to use an online source, which is a bad thing. We should be prefering books over webpages. This is not even broaching the copyright issue, which can come into play when a large percentage of a copyrighted text ends up being displayed in these quotes. Basically quotes can be a good things. However I think using quotes liberally provides very little to no benefit to the article and causes many problems. The biggest problem in this article is how you are you using non-authoratative websites just so you may copy out the quote, when the same information could be referenced from a much more reliable book resource. That trend is a huge problem in my eyes.

A WP requires articles to be referenced.

B WP does not require fact checking.

C Fact checking by one person (i.e. the person coping the quotes) is worse than useless, it is misleading.

D The trend in this article to take items found in book listed as a reference and "cite" them from webpages makes the article less reliable than it was before the citations were added. (If this is not what happened correct me)

E I question whether you are removing statements because they are actually unreferenced or because you are simply unable to fact check them. The former is per policy the latter is unacceptable. I don't know the answer to which description is more accurate. I think everyone here could really help by explaining what they believe the following terms mean. "unsourced material"; "uncited material"; what does it take for a statement to be considered "footnoted"; what does it mean for an article to be considered "reference"; what is an acceptable and unacceptable "citation". I think an RFC may be useful but not until after we have layed the ground and can understand what each other means when using the above terms. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that by having large amount of quoted material it makes it really hard to work in the edit window. In many places of this article there is more quoted material than articvle text between the quotes. This alone is a good reason to use quotes sparingly.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should unsourced items be removed at a granular level?

Position 1

The items in Talk:Marcel_Lefebvre#Removing_uncited_material should be removed unless citations can be found.

All items should be sourced. WP:V states that:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

It also says:

Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

and:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.

Thus any fact that is not sourced should be removed. This does not mean that a harmless fact or opinion should be removed immediately - but the process of tagging, announcing and then removing unsourced facts is more than adequate.

JASpencer 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the process you are using. The actual complaint which brought me here has little to do with the above. It was that you are using unreliable sources and adding too many footnotes to the article. The above position is only justification for your removals which is only part of what is going on here. Also the above postion is heavy on quoted policy and light on how you are interpreting this policy. I would very much like to read three paragraghs of your thoughts on each paragraph of policy. Because I honestly am not sure what you mean when you say things like "any fact that is not sourced". We cannont have a real dialog until we are sure what the each person means by such things. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there biographical articles on other deceased persons where this interpretation of WP:V has been implemented, i.e. the removal of all sentences or phrases which do not have an individual footnotes? Noel S McFerran 13:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Position 2

The items in Talk:Marcel Lefebvre#Removing uncited material should not be removed. All of the "uncited material" comes from the definitive biography on Lefebvre which is noted in the "Further reading" section. It is not necessary to add citations for each and every phrase or sentence in the article.

The discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability makes it clear that it is not the intention of WP:V that each and every phrase or sentence be individually footnoted.

In addition:

It is not appropriate to footnote general statments of fact (e.g. footnote 1 - that Lefebvre was a Roman Catholic bishop). This is like footnoting the fact that Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States or that Elvis Presley was a singer - and using as the "source" any other webpage which happens to make this statement.

It is not appropriate to footnote a statement based upon a synthesis of a variety of written sources (e.g. footnote 2 - that Lefebvre took the lead in opposing the reforms within the Catholic Church associated with the Second Vatican Council). The current footnote to this sentence cites a single journal article which talks about those who "have followed the lead given by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre". That is not the source of the statement in the Wikipedia article; it is merely an article which includes similar words. The citation actually reduces the authority of the statement. Instead of being seen as the generally held opinion on the topic, the statement is now reduced to merely representing the view of one or two individual writers.

It is not the normal practice in scholarship to reproduce in a footnote the exact wording of the sentence in the source. This only needs to be done where the specific wording is significant.

Noel S McFerran 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why if something is published in the biography it can't be cited as per normal. The book clearly meets the criterion in WP:RS If all the information is in the biography then there should be no problem. Cite it. If you can't lay your hands in the book then enter it in when you have the book. If it's not there, then it shouldn't go in.

Similarly if you think that the book would be a better citation than an "unschorlarly" website then put this in, although if other things are equal I would count on the website as it is more easily verifiable - but that is a personal preference. Besides the issue is not whether a particular source is scholarly but if it is reliable. Articles in the Angelus about the SSPX are clearly reliable.

As far as I can see not one of the unsourced statements is "common knowledge", apart from point 11 - although the citation I want is actually on whether this was notable. And I can't really see anything that changes the whole thrust of the article.

JASpencer 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Algorithm for what to do with unsourced statements

Here's what I personally do in these cases.

1. If you find an unsourced statement, do not remove it. Just find a source.
2. If after researching it, you still can't find a source, still don't remove it-- put up the citation needed tag.
3. If no citation is forthcoming, but you don't doubt the factual accuracy of the statement, then leave it be.
4. If you have a statement that you suspect is actually untrue and which is unsourced-- THEN you can remove it.

Linked to this is the idea that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A claim that Lefebvre was ordained on May 25 (as opposed to May 26th) might be non-controversial and allowed to remain even if it's uncited. A claim that Lefebvre was responsible for the Kennedy Assassination, on the other hand, probably could removed on-sight without any further discussion.

Ultimately, the burden is definitely on people who want to have statements included-- if they want them in, it needs to be verifiable. All the same, don't remove something just because it's uncited-- remove it because it's untrue. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So, for example, there's a New York Times article excerpted here that has the sentence "The French-born prelate died of cancer on March 25 at the age of 85, almost three years after being excommunicated for defying papal orders." But you have to pay to see the whole article, so I can't read the fulltext, and I haven't had any luck finding other cancer sources. But it does appeart to be true, so, I wouldn't remove that solely on the basis of it not being cited. --Alecmconroy 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I would cite that just as I would cite any other newspaper. It doesn't have to be on the internet to be cited. If it wasn't cited then remove it. We are building an encyclopedia not a scribbling pad. JASpencer 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A specific example

Statement 5-10 in your list above are from this edit [1] by Noel S McFerran Noel stated on your talk page [2] that the source they were using is the biography list in "Further Reading". These statements are sourced. Now I hate to guess what you are thinking, but you haven't explained your thoughts as I have asked so I must speculate. I speculate that you will disagree that these statements are sourced. Please tell me if my speculation is correct and if it is please explain what you think something being "sourced" means. Because I believe it means that the statements came from a known reference that has been described in enough detail (in this case the ISBN) to let readers locate said reference and fact check the statements if they so wish.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I do think that if something comes out of a book then it is sourced. However wikipedia articles are different to a magazine article (no matter how scholarly) in that it can be changed at any time by any one with any agenda. So if we are satisfied with a general declaration to "look at the book" at the end of the article we could have anyone adding anything afterwards with a general claim to look at the book. That's why WP:V exists, and that's why we should keep to it.

I would also say that in a subject as controversial as Marcel Lefebvre that the article should stick more, not less, strictly to WP:V.

JASpencer 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am still (more) confused. You believe these statements are sourced but are not satisified that they should stay in the article, correct? If we put a footnote(s) of "Tissier de Mallerais, Bernard, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography (Kansas City, Mo.: Angelus Press, 2004), 338. ISBN: 1892331241". Would you be satisfied with that?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If it had a page number for the claim, yes. JASpencer 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)