Talk:Annibale Bugnini

message: This article (written from scratch today) should probably be Annibale Bugnini, but I'll leave that for the next. There really is a dearth of material on this guy. Most of the biographical facts are culled from his memoirs of the Liturgical Reforms. But the more I read the more I relaise what a slippery customer he was. but to include all that would entangle us in POV.--Stroika 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title? 

message: Are there any usable images of Cardinal Bugnini?  This is an area I know very little about.
JASpencer 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to "second" this request.  And if there aren't, can we move the Paul VI image somewhere else, such as lower on the page?  The Pope's photo is near where I would expect Bugnini's photo, and that seems like a bad idea. - Lawrence King 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usable Images 

message: :1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
This article was further improved from the above comments and thus meets the criteria of the GA article. Anything more that can be requested is expansion as it covers the necessary topics pertaining to the subject.
Lincher 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA re-review

message: I am afraid that I think it necessary to delist this article - it is a very poor treatment of the topic and comes nowhere near the good article standards. My reasons are as follows:
1. It is well written Fail 
* The Controversy section sticks out from the main body of the article like a sore thumb, duplicates things already said and does not flow well.
2. Factually acurate Pass (in that nothing appears to be said that is untrue - but see below for imbalance)
3. It is broad in its coverage Fail
* Far too much of the article deals with the unsubstantiated accusations that he was a freemason. Yes, he acknowledges (and strenuously denies) these accusations in The Reform of the Liturgy, and this should be stated in the article - BUT it is dealt with in this article almost as though it was the most important aspect of his life, rather than a smear. It is refered to once in the lead, dominates the After Consilium section, and then the rumours start AGAIN in the Controversy section.
* Whilst obviously keeping the focus on Bugnini rather than on the reforms themselves, a lot more could be said about the reforms and Bugnini's role in bringing them about, especially given that he is viewed as a primary architect. Also more could be said about his opinions on the function and form of the liturgy and his rationales in helping to sculpt, promote and support the reforms. From this article, you get the impression that he was involved in various offices, that while he was in those offices he did something, and that something created controversy - but you are never really clued in on WHAT the something was, which is essential given that the article is meant to work without having too much prior knowledge of the topic at hand. More is said right now about his not being appointed in 1962 than about all the work that he had done before or after.
4. Neutral point of view Fail
* Although I would not delist on this score alone, I am unsure about the standard of some of the articles used for references - considering the amount of books and articles published on this important period, there seems to be an excessive reliance on articles with a strong traditionalist POV, again which seem to be fixated on this issue of masonic involvement.
* Far more weight is given to the suspicions and controversies surrounding his work than to the work itself.
5. Article stability Pass
6. Images? Fail
* While a picture is not a necessity in an article, it is somewhat odd to have a picture of Pope Paul VI occupying the spot where a picture of the subject of the article usually sits. I double took when I first accessed the article, and I can't help but think this is a situation ripe for confusion, even with the explanatory caption.
Robotforaday 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisting

message: I had started with the Masonic allegations, as most of that section had more to do with the relationship of the Church and Freemasonry in general than it did to Bugnini in particular, and read like a book report on Davies' work.  It also had a lot of editorial commentary, which I excised. I then went back and cleaned everything else up, as there is a lot of secondary material that only serves to confuse the reader.  Much of this article is based solely on work by Davies, and I decided to err on the side of caution and leave the book review in there even though it isn't really referenced (as it would be easy to get something out of it).  As it stands, the article is chronologically segmented, and there's a lot of room there to add information, and considered the article subject was involved in some of the biggest changes in the Church in centuries (if not millenia), there must be material there. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedited 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Annibale Bugnini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510112713/http://www.cmroma.it/m_bugnini.html to http://www.cmroma.it/m_bugnini.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413141450/http://insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2009/newsflash-jul-15-09.htm to http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2009/newsflash-jul-15-09.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to  this book, Bugnini deleted from the reformed liturgy any reference to the Roman Catholic dogmas. This had been done in seek of the ecumenism and for a common liturgy shared with the Protestants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.121.62 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what is meant. That statement can't be true in its most literal form, because we still have Masses for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and for the Assumption of Mary. So the Catholic Marian dogmas aren't deleted from the liturgy. Possibly he wanted to (but was overruled), or removed some (but not all) mentions, but "deleted" can't be right. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marian dogmas