Talk:Paškal Buconjić

Full citations needed

Full citations are needed for "Pandžić 2001" and "Šarac 2009". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paškal Buconjić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 01:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Observations

• This article contains significant coverage of the Austrian-Hungarian government and the internecine lines of control between government and the Vatican about appointments and leadership of dioceses in Herzegovina. While this is an important element in episcopal appointments, it is not the complete story of Buconjić's time as a Bishop in Herzegovina.

• The essential character of this article narrates those lines of control, from the Bishop to the Emperor, (the Bishop had the decoration of the Emperor, the Commander of the Cross of Franz Joseph, and was embroiled on political scheming right from his return from Rome to the Friary where he was lecturing in morals) to Propaganda Fide, to the Vatican Secretary of State and to the Pope. This article is basically about the ecclesiastical and political control of these territories. It is too much detail, too much of Papal Decisia, too much of nomination of names to the Emperor. The article is not simply about a bishop and Apostolic Administrator; it is about the history of a territory and control of that territory, both civilian and ecclesiastical.

• This article needs significant rewriting and precis.

• There should be a short account of Buconjić's family and childhood;

• There should be a short account of Buconjić's novitiate, scholasticate and ordination to the priesthood;

• There should be an succinct account of Buconjić's time in Rome as a lecturer and founder of the Croatian College;

• There should be an accounting - and evaluation - of Buconjić's support for the Austrian-Hungarian control of Herzegovina as a territory and the booklet he prepared and distributed should be linked, if it is available;

• There should be a precis of the two paragraphs associated with the Herzegovina uprising;

• There should be a precis of the narration of Buconjić's journey to the Episcopate;

• The reason for his ordination in Zagreb should be retained;

• There should be an accounting - and evaluation of Buconjić's administration of his diocese and his failures at same to promote diocesan clergy and diocesan parishes;

• The paragraph On 30 June 1876, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on Ottoman Empire is not about the works nor activities of this bishop; removal of this section is indicated;

• Conflict with Bishop Kraljević may be retained;

• The section Austrian-Hungarian occupation may retain the paragraph commencing

When Austrian-Hungarian General Stjepan Jovanović entered Herzegovina via Vrgorac on 31 August 1878 to occupy the territory, Buconjić received him in the Humac friary and helped him to enter Ljubuški and the rest of West Herzegovina without resistance.[24] Not long after the occupation, Buconjić sent a telegram to Emperor Franz Joseph expressing his hope for the unification of Bosnia and Herzegovina with Croatia.[31][32] Buconjić was also a member of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian delegation that went to Budapest to bow down before the Emperor,[14][24] presenting him a memoranda authored by Buconjić.[24]

The remainder of this section is not about the works nor the ecclesiastical activities of this bishop and may be removed;

• The Apostolic Vicar of Herzegovina, Bishop Anđeo Kraljević died on 27 July 1879 while on a chrismian visit to Konjic. Chrismian is not an English word, nor is it Latin. Drop this or expand it to say a visit to distribute chrism oils to Konjic.

• The section Apostolic Vicar of Herzegovina may retain the first paragraph. The reminder in this section is not about the works nor the ecclesiastical activities of this bishop and may be removed;

• The first seven paragraphs of Bishop of Mostar-Duvno may be retained in entirety as it narrates the activities of the Bishop;

• The paragraph commencing Buconjić had a leading role in the Croatian national movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina may be removed as it does not relate to pastoral nor ecclesiastical activities of a Bishop;

• The section Administrative organisation may be profitably reduced to three paragraphs concluding with the Papal Decisia and Buconjić's refusal to follow the Papal direction and subsequent decision to conceal the Papal Decisia for 10 years. In summary, the article is about the episcopacy of Buconjić; although he was an OFM and favoured the Franciscans, the battle for retention of parishes is not the central point nor the high point of this article. Make a precis.

• On 5 September 1888, the clergy of Trebinje-Mrkan again asked Nuncio Galimberti for the new bishop and for Buconjić to respects the boundaries edit to say respect the boundaries

• The section Apostolic Administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan can be reduced by precis to three paragraphs, retaining essential information about borders and Apostolic territory administration;

• Death and succession is too long and can be reduced to three paragraphs.

• If references are available in Croatian, and online, then these should be linked.

---

 

Final

There is an extreme difficulty here about the history of this territory, uprisings, divisions and rulership of territories after war, and the internecine battles for control of the territory through Episcopal appointments nominated by the State and later approval by Rome. As the article is about a Bishop who became Apostolic Administrator of all Herzegovina, there is too much diversion in the article to Church and State matters. It did not help that Buconjić deliberately involved himself in such matters. The other critical issue is the Franciscan custos and the battle for control of Herzegovina by Fransciscans of the Custos of the Franciscan Custody of Herzegovina, and their shameful behaviour in actively seeking that control through retention of parishes, the erection of new parishes and seminaries, although Herzegovina was well and truly no longer a missionary nation.

This ambitious article depicts the difficult tryst between Church and State, and the Franciscan / Diocesan custody battle; the article needs to be pruned back to the episcopacy of Pascal Buconjić in the main, with needful addition of materials to explain the extension and settling of the boundaries of this Apostolic Administration. To this end, I fail this article, and leave these recommendations for the next reviewer to validate upon the next nomination.       --Whiteguru (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 

1. Pass/Fail:

This was a very good critique of the article, and I thank you for it. I'll try to implement your suggestions and improve the article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: Appreciate that you have done a lot of *good* work and research to come up with an important part of the history of Herzegovina, inseparable as it is from the ecclesiastical history. You have met formidable challenges, I do say. However, we must stick to the topic, the Episcopacy of Pascal Buconjić. Wish you all good. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.