Talk:Raymond Leo Burke/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lingzhi2 (talk · contribs) 21:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

{Disclosure: I am not Catholic.]

This article strikes me as being quite POV. It goes into very excessive detail (and by excessive I mean, "It needs to be trimmed more than a little") about his views and remarks concerning things which the left political wing of the US find offensive, but spends exactly zero time saying anything positive. For example, it mentions in the lede that he is considered a leader of the conservative wing of the Catholic church. Follow the link, what's the title of the source? "thousands sign a letter thanking him". But were those thousands of people mentioned? Absolutely not. This might be fair in the sense of being well-cited, but it is not fair in the sense of being balanced.

I would suggest that trimming be done. That seems more important than adding new details.

If I had come across this GAN not long after it was created, I would have simply Failed it out of hand. But since it has been unreviewed forever and an age, I can give it a little time for revision. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, thank you for taking this review. I must say that I am quite a bit surprised by your characterization of the article as biased against Burke. Full disclosure: I am a Traditional Catholic, the most conservative type of Catholic there is, and actually admire Burke. You have used as an example only one source in the lead. This source is not actually used for the sentence saying that Burke is seen as a leader of the Church's conservative wing but for the claim that he is "perceived as a voice of traditionalism." There is however this sentence: "He is frequently seen as the de facto leader of the Church's conservative wing." For this there are two sources. The first one is a Crux article. Crux is an independent news agency which is recognized as a reliable source for news in the Catholic Church. It identifies Burke as a leader of Francis's "conservative opposition." The next source is an article from The Guardian, which calls Burke "an arch-conservative."

All of the content in the article is sourced and seems relevant. I don't understand how an undue amount of space is dedicated to discussing any particular question at all. The question of whether his views are offensive is irrelevant. What matter is whether they are presented fairly and accurately. Presentation of Burke's statements is not positive or negative. It is simply an honest discussion of his positions. If you believe that the article is biased or needs trimming, can you please cite specific examples? I don't see any. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The article dwells upon his views too excessively. This article is not about the Traditionalist Catholic response to homosexuality, abortion, divorce. etc. It's about Burke. For one thing, I would suggest you need to find criticism of him and add it. Popular criticism would be best, but in-house criticism would be beneficial as well. For another, trim his views. The article largely reflects his views. As I said above, the question is NOT whether or not your observations are well-cited, it is POV and UNDUE. Spend time researching. Find stuff that is from sources where you haven't looked. Ummm, for example: " Burke doesn’t stop at merely arguing that women and girls are icky. He also lays the pedophile priest scandal at the feet of women..." Or whatever.

He denies being a leader of conservatives: "...[Burke] has long eschewed the title of opposition leader, and is on record as rejecting and repudiating any disloyalty to the Pope or disunity in the Church. '[I]t is a source of anguish for me,' Burke told this journalist in January of last year, 'people suggesting that I would lead a schism.'"

In essence, quote him less, quote others more. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Your initial comment indicated that the article was biased against Burke, and when I interpreted that as being what you meant, you did not deny it. Now you're saying that I need to find criticism of him. This seems contradictory. There is already plenty of criticism of him. The article discusses popular criticism of him during his time as Bishop of La Crosse. It also quotes other bishops expressing disagreement with various statements that he has made. There are criticisms of him from archbishops under "Opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage" and "Islam and immigration," and there could be more that I'm missing. That's plenty. Any more would be giving undue weight to criticism of Burke. Also, if we're going to add a lot more criticism to his page, we'd also have to add praise in order to maintain a balance. If we accompany that with the removal of discussions about things which Burke has said, very quickly the article becomes a summary of what different people think about Burke rather than Burke himself.

I think you need to explain how discussing Burke's views, in an article about Burke, is POV and undue. What you seem to be asking is that we cut down on discussing what Burke himself has to say about things while following up on each one of his statements with criticism from some left-wing blogger. That's what's POV and UNDUE. Like you said, the article is about Burke, which means that it should discuss HIS views, not those of other people.

I'm also perplexed that while you tell me that the article focuses too heavily on Burke and his views and comments, you have also linked to two separate articles reporting on his views and have directly quoted other comments from him. If you do not want me to add them, which is what I expect from your previous comments, what am I supposed to do with them? His comments on the alleged feminization of the Church are, by the way, already mentioned in the article under "Role of women in the Church and priest shortage." Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

In summary, quote him less and others more. That's fairly standard for such an article. Add sources praising him (I didn't see any), add sources critical of his views and actions. The emphasis on his own words is undue, the lack of praise is POV. Yes, it will be much easier to find criticism than praise. But it's important to try. What about charity work? What about praise from other conservatives? Must be stuff somewhere.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, again, I don't see how in an article about Burke, emphasis on Burke's words rather than those of other people is undue. You have not provided any concrete explanation for why you believe that what we have here is too much. I have no plans to eliminate any of the material about Burke's positions and public statements. If you are unwilling to back down here, I suggest asking for a second opinion. I could find two favorable things about Burke to add. The first was a statement that his aides during his tenure as Bishop of La Crosse said that he was warm and approachable in private. The other was a quote from Pope Francis in which he said, "I do not see Cardinal Burke as an enemy" and calling him an "excellent lawyer." I added both of these things and tried to find other stuff but couldn't. I think that there is now a more equal balance of praise and criticism article. Adding any more criticism would be undue. Display name 99 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(←) I apolgize if I have not been explaining myself well. Looking at WP:WIAGA, I think this article is very largely (at least half if not more) focused on what Burke thinks of the world. The "Views" section has several subsections and occupies more than half the article. However, there is almost nothing about what the world thinks of Burke. That would certainly violate point #3 of WIAGA and (I Think) also point #4. Perhaps add a section about.. not sure what the section would be called... it would be conceptually similar to the "Critical reception" section of a movie article, but certainly would not have that title... hmmm. But it needs more of what the world thinks of him. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, I just found a scathing editorial published about Burke by the National Catholic Reporter in July, and added some quote from it to the article, enough for a full paragraph. I think that this should help address your concerns. Although I have tried, I can find nothing else published in a any mainstream sources showing people praising him. The Pope Francis quote and the added content about what his aides in La Crosse had to say about him might be all we get. I'm not sure about the idea of a separate section. Content explaining what people think about Burke is sprinkled throughout the article. Some of it is from people in the Bishop of La Crosse section responding to his tenure there as bishop. There are other things scattered throughout "Views," which makes sense, because it is easier to understand these reactions if we place them alongside the discussions of what Burke said or did to provoke such a reaction, rather than in a totally separate section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I had that thought too (that a separate section for criticism would be awkward) after I logged off, but had many family things to do.... I will re-read later tonight or today. Thank you for your patience. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks notable:

In recent months, critics have described him as an “ultraconservative fanatic,” “anti-Conciliar,” “in conspiracy against the Pope” and even ready for a schism should the upcoming family synod open up unwelcome changes.

The criticism has been so defamatory that in Italy several bishops have even refused to host his lectures in their dioceses. Where he has been allowed to give a conference — as recently in some cities in the north of Italy — there are invariably priests who oppose him and accuse him of spreading propaganda against the Pope.

— Cardinal Burke Responds to Recent Criticisms

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, I can see that as well. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You might wanna link to Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ somewhere. Was any passage from the actual text quoted in Wikipedia? I dunno. Use your best judgment.

There are no direct quotes from the text in the article, but I've added the letter as a source. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm? I thought I had removed all the italics from |publisher= and |newspaper=. Yes, I did, but they were re-added.. Please see: Help:CS1_errors#apostrophe_markup.

You did but then self-reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I self-reverted because of the whole |dead-url= flap. I need to go see whether they've reached any conclusion on that. You can fix the quotation marks, or I will later maybe today. The dead-url thing... as I said, I will look. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I put a "citation needed" tag on this sentence: "Specific passages in the declaration implicitly relate to several writings by Pope Francis, and most of them are seen as criticism or even opposition." I did that because I didn't notice any support for "most of them are seen as criticism or even opposition " in the cite at the end of that paragraph.

I removed the tag while replacing "most with "some." I added the National Catholic Reporter editorial as a source. Together, the two sources support the claim that some of the statements in the declaration were intrepreted as criticisms of Pope Francis. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

In a related note, however, I think the WP:LEDE doesn't state clearly or strongly enough that Burke's statements are often seen as seen as direct opposition to the Pope.

I added the following sentence: "While Burke has denied allegations of being disloyal to Pope Francis, a number of statements that he has made have been interpreted as direct criticisms of the Pope, leading to a backlash from some Catholics directed at Burke." Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the section header "Comments on the Mass" isn't informative enough. Maybe "Criticism of liturgical reform" or... I dunno, I'm not Catholic. Something a bit more informative, that includes the word "Criticism".

I replaced "Comments" with "Views" because the section also discusses Burke's role in performing traditional ordinations and, as I have just added, frequently offering the Traditional form of the Mass. These are not comments but actions. This is the reason why I do not favor adding the word "Criticism." In addition, the section quotes Burke's thoughts on Summorum pontificum, which he called "the most splendid contribution of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI." This certainly is not criticism, and I believe that a broader section title is necessary. Essentially, the section is broader than simply relaying Burke's criticisms of the implementation of the newer form of the Mass, even if these do make up more than half of the space. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"Church-ese"–There are some phrases (and perhaps abbreviations) that seem to have special meaning that need to be unpacked for the uninitiated reader. Let's see:

• what's a "model of accompaniment"

No idea. But it's part of a quote so people are going to have to interpret it as best they can. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• not in full communion with the Holy See

Changed communion to union, which seems like more general language, and linked Holy See. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• USCCB

Spelled out United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and put USCCB in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• vocation, or maybe Vocational discernment in the Catholic Church?

Linked to latter article. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• And perhaps others? You'll have to put on your "non-Catholic" glasses and read as if you had no idea what the phrases etc. meant. Or perhaps ask a non-Catholic to do so. Yes, I know it's kinda difficult and tedious and may take more than a little time. For that reason, this won't be a sticking point in this review. Please fix the ones I listed here, and later after this review is over, please fix more. I won't say more about this point. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of others. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Display name 99: I am revising my earlier opinion and Leaning Pass. I think we are getting close to the end here. I'd like to see your responses to my comments, though. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Lingzhi2. I'm still working through it. I'll get back to you within the next day. Display name 99 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, I'll get back to you right now actually. Please see above. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am satisfied that this article meets the requirements of WP:WIAGA. PASS GA nom. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)