Talk:Amoris laetitia

Comment

tinyurl.com/amorislaetitia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.208.111 (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Dubia" section (and the entire article) seem slanted toward the critics of the publication. A more even-handed balance was published on the CRUX web site on Jan. 18, 2017, by Ines Saint Martin. Her article tallied major church leaders who had "come out" taking different interpretative stances on the document. If all you are going to read is Ross Douthat and Eddie Pentin, you are going to have a warped view of the Catholic world.

66.214.9.7 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Attribution notice

@Crusadestudent: you added the hatnote {{En-WP attribution notice}} instead of {{Copied}}. I do not think you have to worry about licensing with that one either. Also see WP:PATT. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct. And easily removed. And since near-identical passages were added to both WP entries at roughly the same time by a single editor, there's no need to use Copied to point back to earlier edit history. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Edward Peters

User:BoBoMisiu has several times placed commentary from Edward N. Peters into the section of the article entitled "Selected quotations by topic." There is no doubt that the thoughts of Mr. Peters are relevant and worthy of inclusion in the article. It is not appropriate, as the article is currently structured, to include them in a section that is a collection of direct quotations from the exhortation. That is why I created a new section in the article and moved the comment there.

BoBoMisiu insists on placing it with the quotations from Pope Francis. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, however, I am going to revert one last time. As it stands now, the quotation is in the article twice. I don't think that is what anyone wants. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Briancua: it is appropriate to place the commentary in the section that the commentary describes – that is the location in the document where a commentary is most helpful for a reader and not fragmented like your separate section. Who decided that the section will only contain Francis's quotes? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Links

English linked to "what is the english language" instead of "the English version of the text". please be more pertinent as to un-neccesary or false leads.

Too much focus on criticisms

As currently written, this is not an article about Amoris Laetitia. It is an article about criticisms of Amoris Laetitia. From start to finish, criticisms of Amoris Laetitia, with cites to critics of Amoris Laetitia, permeate the article.

I propose the following:

1. I and other users will add more content from Amoris Laetitia itself, and from its official implementation by the Catholic Church.

2. Criticisms of Amoris Laetitia will be consolidated into a single summary section of the article, with a link to:

3. A separate article on "Criticisms of Amoris Laetitia" or "Controversy Regarding Amoris Laetitia", where everyone can be free to post all the criticisms, and responses to criticisms, that they want.

I will begin work on part 1 of my proposal immediately. I would like to hear feedback and discussion on proposals 2 and 3. I welcome alternatives and other ideas.

PluniaZ (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents

This article already contains too much dispersed sentences of Amoris Laetitia...

I do not think at all that the "request for clarification" section, which is entirely based on reliable sources, has been given undue weight. Quite the contrary indeed. In many top quality newspapers (New York Times, The Guardian, Times, Washington Post...) we find articles dedicated to an "ongoing war" in the Vatican, caused by this papal document.

So please avoid POV:Fork, and do not change the structure of the article without a consensus on this talk page.

Moreover, we have to remember that this highly controversial exhortation is an ongoing event. Thucyd (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A POV:Fork seeks to "avoid a neutral point of view." This article does not have a neutral point of view:

1. Due and undue weight (a): "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The critics of Amoris Laetitia are a minority in the Catholic Church and as such do not deserve the attention they receive in this article.

2. Due and undue weight (b): "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." The critics of Amoris Laetitia are a tiny minority in the Catholic Church and as such do not deserve to be mentioned at all in this article. Rather, they constitute a phenomenon in and of themselves that would make an interesting article.

3. Balancing aspects (a): "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The criticisms focus entirely on one small aspect of a 264 page document and as such are grossly given too much weight in this article.

4. Balancing aspects (b): "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This describes the criticisms of Amoris Laetitia perfectly.

5. Equal Validity: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." The opinions of lay people are not of equal validity with the opinions of the Pope, cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church.

6. Balance. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." The small group of mostly lay critics of Amoris Laetitia are not as prominent as the Pope, cardinals and bishops who support the document. As Bishop Robert Barron said this week, the bishops need to "seize control of the narrative" that is being controlled by the "blogosphere", which is not as prominent as the bishops.

7. Impartial tone. The article has a partial tone from the beginning, immediately referring to "contentious" synods, launching straight into the issue of the divorced and communion. After two curt sentences saying nothing at all substantive about the document, the introduction immediately launches into two full paragraphs about criticisms.

8. Words to watch. "Proved", "scholars", "notably" ...

9. Bias in sources. Media outlets with an agenda to stir controversy toward Pope Francis (National Catholic Register, "World Over", UK Catholic Herald) and in general, media outlets that make money by selling controversy, are biased sources.

Overall, the main issues are (1) balancing aspects - the current article is focused almost entirely on one aspect of an Apostolic Exhortation that covers many, many issues and (2) giving undue weight to a tiny group of critics.

If you have suggestions for how to correct this, I am all ears.

PluniaZ (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This article well reflects the fact that a vast majority of the reliable sources on AL focuses on the controversy. Bishop Barron explicitly admits this fact.

Given the ambiguous nature of the document, I don't think we can even speak of "critics of Amoris Laetitia".

Even if this were true, regarding your claim of a "tiny minority" of "critics of Amoris Laetitia", according to the Guardian, "To judge by the voting figures at the last worldwide meeting of bishops, almost a quarter of the college of Cardinals – the most senior clergy in the church – believe that the pope is flirting with heresy." (A. Brown,"The war against Francis"). According to Associated Press, "the document has badly divided the Catholic Church, with some commentators warning that it risked creating a schism given its opening to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics." (Winfield, "Pope reaffirms conscience as heresy debate divides church")

And even if we had a "tiny minority" of "critics of AL", we would have only a "tiny minority" of "supporters of AL". For example, most of the national conferences of bishops remain remarkably silent. Thucyd (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wipedia is not a newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper or online news site. Most newspapers are journals of current news, reporting current events in the world. Some newspaper articles are features that contain longer coverage and analysis. Newspapers can also disseminate the opinion of those who write them or expose secrets or lies. Newspapers write information that may be subjective in nature. Wikipedia does none of these things. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity."

Moreover, news outlets are subject to heightened scrutiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Moreover, wikipedia articles need to adhere to objectivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject."

The latest "news" about what someone said about Amoris Laetitia is not historically significant. Opinions and analysis in news outlets are not reliable sources. Your feelings and the feelings of others about whether Amoris Laetitia is controversial are not objective.

This article as currently written violates the requirements for neutrality and the requirement for Wikipedia not to be a newspaper. Are there any proposals for how to fix this?

PluniaZ (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have flagged various issues throughout the article. PluniaZ (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Before flagging what you think are various issues of the article, you should have obtained consensus on the talk page.

I think that your main concern does not apply here and, given the nature of the ongoing controversy, you are simply asking too much. For example, what is the source of this sentence published in a peer-reviewed article by Conor M. Kelly in Theological Studies: "as with Pope Francis’s comments on the church’s sacramental practice, the meaning of Amoris Laetitia’s definition of conscience has also been contested." Answer: Edward Pentin in National Catholic Register... So, if National Catholic Register is a reliable source for an academic journal published by Jesuits, I guess it is also a reliable source for Wikipedia.

So could you please remove your tags? Thanks in advance. Thucyd (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's get input from everybody else. PluniaZ (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The tagging is extreme, the whole (editorial) and (importance?) thing makes the article difficult, if not impossible, to read and borders in spam. The (better source needed) tag really needs consensus only when speaking about facts, not about evidence of criticism. the sheer ammount of tagging makes WP:AGF difficult to be honest. Creating a separate article on criticisms should be out of the question. Dryfee (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The tagging reflects the failure of the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, as I have explained in detail in this section. Most of the inline flags are straightforward and reflect blatant instances of editorializing, giving undue weight to events of minor importance, and citing news media opinion and analyses articles as sources. Once we clean up these issues, the flags can come off. Please see my proposal for how to fix these issues in the new section I have created below: "Proposed Rewrite" PluniaZ (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

After 10 days, it seems clear that you are not going to obtain the required consensus. So may I ask you to remove all the tagging? Thanks. Thucyd (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

10 days isn't very long. It's not uncommon for months to go by between responses on the Talk page. And it's only been a few hours since I submitted a proposal that would allow all the tags to be removed. Let's see what the responses are. PluniaZ (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

Due to the current article's failure to meet Wikipedia's quality standards as I have explained in detail in the above section "Too much focus on criticisms", I have drafted a proposed rewrite of the article on my Sandbox page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PluniaZ/sandbox

Please leave comments on my proposed rewrite in this section. PluniaZ (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Substantial Rewrite

In the interests of keeping the conversation going while keeping the article accessible to visitors, and not burdening them with tags, I have drafted a substantial rewrite of the article that fixes the issues that I and other users have addressed on this talk page.

Summary of my changes:

1. Neutral tone: I have eliminated all instances of editorializing. The article simply states facts without attempting to characterize them.

2. Reorganization: For the sake of clarity, I have restructured the article into 5 main parts: (1) Text, (2) Release, (3) Implementation, (4) Requests for clarification; dubia etc. and (5) Quotes on select topics. I deleted the prior section on "Pastoral Care" because this was redundant with the other section on selected quotations. I kept the section on the press release although I would prefer to take it out because I don't think it is historically significant. I added direct sourcing for each of the bishops implementations that I am aware of - please feel free to add any that I have missed. There was a lot of material in the prior "implemenation" section that fits better in the "clarification/dubia" section, so I moved it there. I also thought it would help the clarification/dubia section to add sub-headings and break it down chronologically.

3. Sources: Although I have previously objected to the use of opinion pieces and blogs as sources, I generally kept them in the "clarification/dubia" section but not in the rest of the article, which should be simply factual. I have also added balancing sources to the clarification/dubia section that give answers to many of the criticisms of Amoris Laetitia.

I think this will allow us to continue to discuss how to improve the article while making it clear, readable and neutral to visitors.

PluniaZ (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT EDIT WAR I have made substantial new and valuable contributions to this article. Let the community calmly analyze and reflect on the content of the article. PluniaZ (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't gone thoroughly through the article yet, but do quickly notice that there could easily be more links to bios of persons mentioned, articles on bishops' conferences and/or articles on the church in individual countries where appropriate, and a few other maybe more obvious internal links. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been adding internal links in appropriate spots as I see them. PluniaZ (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The changes made in the recent past are indeed substantial, and it was difficult for me to review carefully and figure out, just from the diffs, what all has changed. But I skimmed the current article as well and I must say that it is an improvement. Nothing egregious is sticking out at me to be corrected here. I would like to hear from @Thucyd: about his specific objections and reasons for a wholesale revert. It would be useful to discuss anything that may need to be kept from old revisions. But PluniaZ's additions are valuable, worthwhile, and have increased the encyclopedic value of this article. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I object to the systematic changing of sources from authentically Catholic news outlets to heretical ones such as The Tablet and America. These two in particular have garnered a reputation for supporting dissent and confusion among Catholics and are not really reliable sources for facts about the Catholic Church. Many, many articles in the WikiProject space are infested with citations to such poor sources, and the resulting bias shows clearly in the articles themselves, in contravention of WP:NPOV. Let's try to accurately represent the facts on this document and not stuff the ballot box with dissenting opinions. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. With your changes, Edward Pentin's blog is now cited 4 times as a source in the article. Prior to your changes, his blog was cited twice. He is indeed a valuable source of information for many of the critics of Amoris Laetitia, as he often is given personal interviews with the critics. But it is also important to provide a variety of different sources - see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. And blogs are to be used with caution per WP:NEWSBLOG.

As far as integrity, I am not aware of any criticisms of the integrity of America and The Tablet in the journalistic community. That the Tablet is respected as a news organization is indicated by the fact that its reporters are allowed on the papal plane - see http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/8186/0/francis-delivered-clear-message-to-myanmar-military-. America Magazine is staffed with ordained priests and is subject to the authority of the Vatican, so it is also a respected voice.

There were previously 3 news articles cited to America (each with a different author), there are now 2. There was previously only one cite to the Tablet, now there are zero.

I don't think having 3 cites to America, 2 cites to Edward Pentin's blog, and 1 cite to the Tablet (the prior version) is "stuffing the ballot box." I think that having 4 cites to Edward Pentin's blog and zero cites to the Tablet (the new version) is in fact stuffing the ballot box and detracts from WP:NPOV. But I would like to hear from others in the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluniaZ (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I don't think the deletion of America and The Tablet was justified. They are respected journalistic sources. I have added them back in. I kept the 2 extra cites to Pentin and Catholic Culture but recommend they both come out. 2 cites is plenty to Pentin - the 2 cites let readers know they can go to his blog for further information, which should be the goal for all the cites. Catholic Culture is not a journalistic organization so I don't know why it is cited at all, I recommend it be deleted.PluniaZ (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Found this on Catholic Culture website: "Trinity Communications has drawn special inspiration from the outstanding Catholic vision and wisdom of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. The pontificate of Pope Francis presents special challenges, to which we make a point of responding in a thoroughly Catholic way. This response is vital to authentic Catholic renewal today." http://www.catholicculture.org/about/ This source should definitely be removed from the article. PluniaZ (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What is your rationale for removing it? Do you find their editorial statement problematic in some way? Why should the editorial position of a source have any bearing on its reliability, which is evaluated by Wikipedia as "a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight"? 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And I don't object to your adding sources such as those, I objected to your replacement of more-reliable sources with these less-reliable ones. Your most recent edits are quite acceptable. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My rationale is that it's just a website, and clearly one with an opinion. It's not a respected news organization. It has no reason to be trusted as a source of fact.PluniaZ (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Catholic Culture is a news portal, aggregating stories from around the Internet in one convenient place, with a value-add of their own content, including Catholic World News stories. I don't understand why you believe it can't be trusted - can you document its poor reputation or is that your personal opinion? I would say that its stories are as reliable as the original sources that released them. I have personally found it useful, factual, accurate, and helpful. Here is a forum discussion of Catholic Culture, although the focus is mostly on their financials and their defunct "Reviews" section. Granted, there is a mixed reaction, but there is no consensus pointing to a poor reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. The reference in question points to a CWN story, Catholic Culture's own content. I can't seem to find any discussion of CWN on WP:RSN, perhaps you'd care to open a thread and solicit opinions? 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In this article, Philip F. Lawler discusses his editorial philosophy and approach to news reporting. I would welcome you to read it and evaluate it in light of WP:IRS. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on the person claiming that it is a reliable source. The only third party recognition of Catholic Culture that has been provided is an anonymous online internet forum (which adds zero credibility) and a 2004 article from "The Catholic Education Resource Center" (which itself does not appear to have any meaningful third party recognition) about Philip Lawler prior to his time at Catholic Culture. That doesn't cut it. Please provide evidence supporting that this website is a reliable source in accordance with WP:IRS.PluniaZ (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And in the relevant cite, Catholic Culture is simply rehashing an interview that Archbishop Coleridge gave to America which is cited. The Catholic Culture article itself says that it is repeating what was given in an interview with America. There is absolutely no reason to include Catholic Culture as a second cite here.PluniaZ (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You are correct about that. Based on the objective of citing +Coleridge's words, it is pointless to use a secondhand source when the original is easily available. But I find it rather silly that you refuse to recognize the evidence I have provided. The Catholic Answers forum is a reputable, moderated venue with mandatory user registration, so it is not at all "anonymous" any more than Wikipedia is. The users there have reputations and identities, and I provided it as an easily available sample of public opinion about the source in question. In itself it is not required to meet the criteria of WP:RS. As for the CERC transcript of Lawler's words, you have once again misjudged the reliability of a source based on your own personal biases, and I am honestly tired of the recursive activity going on here wherein I have to justify every detail to you. Lacking any actual dispute on the merits of edits to the article in question, I would suggest that this discussion is finished. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Implementation

Are we really going to document every implementation of the document? That's going to run to 3,000 jurisdictions if followed comprehensively, and will certainly soon begin to fall afoul of WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE. It seems to me that we should work to select representative samples or notable exceptions from the norm. We should especially consider that the de jure norm is denial of Communion to adulterous couples, while the de facto norm is the opposite. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that at a certain point it will become unmanageable to include every single bishops' implementation. I think the current list covers almost all of the current implementations. As new ones come out, we can think about how best to update this section. PluniaZ (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That’s a good way to proceed. At some point individual archbishops and bishops will give way to cardinals and conferences. That’s especially useful when a single prelate has little new to say and just echoes another’s statement. Headings will change too. But better to let this entry grow and get a little unwieldy before deciding how to prune and reshape. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Cardinal Arborelius

• McElwee, Joshua J. (8 December 2017). "Sweden's Cardinal Arborelius praises liturgical translation reform". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved 8 December 2017. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

More Müller

Interview: HERE dated 31 December 2017 Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wholesale changes without discussion

User "Thucyd" has made sweeping changes to the article without discussing them here. He erased a copiously prepared section detailing the bishops' guidelines from around the world and added biased flame material from Ross Douthat. I am reverting to the Neko-Chan's edition pending discussion of proposed changes in the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluniaZ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The failures of this article were discussed at length on this talk page, and the much-needed changes I made with the help of other users were progressive, and each time explained in the summary.

As already told on this talk page (cf. above), the implementation section was very badly written, frankly unreadable, and too long. I did not erase it, but simply summarized it, according to the standards of WP, keeping almost all the sources.

For political or/and religious reasons, you do no like senior catholic New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. However, on WP, your political views do not matter: he clearly is a reliable source on this topic, and the sentence on the sexual revolution supported by Douthat's reference is totally uncontroversial. However, I have introduced in the references two other articles: one in Crux by Fr. De Souza, and the other one in The Guardian, both making exactly the same point.

Please, do not edit war. Thucyd (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No one has objected to the previous version of the article on the Talk page until your post just now. The fact is that the prior changes were extensively reviewed by the community and resulted in an increased rating of the article from "Start Class" to "C Class", and the article met nearly every quality check for a "B Class Rating." You have unilaterally undone these changes by deleting an entire section that provided a detailed account of the various bishops guidelines. That is a non-starter. I am unable to restore the article to include the prior Bishops' Guidelines section that you took out unilaterally without also removing your other changes. So you need to go back to the prior version, leave in the bishops' guidelines, and then propose your other changes for discussion.

Ross Douthat's opinions are not historically significant and have no place in this article. He is not a theologian or official of the Catholic Church. People can read his opinions in the New York Times. They have no place here.

Leave in the Bishop's guidelines as they were, and propose your other edits. Please also try to follow the formatting for sources that we have been using. It is a pain to have to fix the format of the article every time you edit it.PluniaZ (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The former implementation section did clearly not respect the standards of Wikipedia. As another user already told you, it was an indiscriminate collection of information relying on primary sources with lenghty and raw quotations (undue weight) something that should be avoided at all costs on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).

The current implementation section did not delete the sources, but just summarized the content. It is still a very detailed section (7-8 paragaphs with dozen of sources) but with a perspective, something readable for a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Please work on this section and do not edit war. Thucyd (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the points I've already made, your proposed version of the article is unacceptable because it (1) violates neutral point of view and (2) relies heavily on original research.

You violate neutral point of view in multiple places where you editorialize. In the third paragraph of the introduction you write, "The main theological point has been the question whether the Catholic Church can overturn her doctrine to respond to the sexual revolution and modernity." This is editorializing. You present an opinion as fact. To back it up you cite the opinions of (1) a New York Times columnist with no theological training, (2) a commentary article written by a priest, and (3) a Guardian article that refers back to the first source you cite. Again, in your description of the bishops' guidelines, you flatly state, "Some of those official pastoral interpretations are contradictory, even within countries." This is your personal opinion, and you cite nothing to support it. I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

The policy on no original research, states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material But this is exactly what you have done. You have read through the bishops' guidelines and commentary on them, and presented your own interpretation as fact. The prior version of the article simply presented the bishops' guidelines as they are, objectively and without biased commentary.

The community reached consensus on the prior version of the article, as is well documented in the upgrade in rating the article received, and you are unilaterally attempting to overturn it to present your own biased views on this subject. If you want anyone to take your changes seriously, you need to present edits that comply with Wikipedia's quality standards as cited above.PluniaZ (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You claim that the sentence "the main theological point has been the question whether the Catholic Church can overturn her doctrine to respond to the sexual revolution and modernity" violates the neutral point of view. But this analysis is widely shared by all the analysts, as the reliable sources easily show it: the "liberal" Guardian journalist agrees with the conservative New York Times columnist who agrees with the senior theologian. Nevertheless, following your suggestion, I introduced a modification in the sentence, it's now: "many commentators have pointed out that the main theological question has been whether the Catholic Church can overturn ...". I also added a new reliable source, by canonist Ed Condon.

Regarding your very strange claim that the sentence "some of those pastoral interpretations are contradictory even within countries" violates the neutral point of view or would be original research (???). This fact is obvious and explicitly stated and well sourced in the section, for example in the United States: the pastoral exhortations written by Chaput and Sample who reaffirmed the prohibition are in contradiction with McElroy's guidelines.

I added several reliable sources, including an article by Edward Pentin that summarizes some of the contradictions of the guidelines, an article in Theological Studies on the early reception and implementation of Amoris Laetitia in 2016, another one by vaticanist Sandro Magister ("In Rome, Yes, In Florence, No, Here’s How “Amoris Laetitia” Is Dividing the Church").

Please, do not delete the current version with all the new reliable content.Thucyd (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Final warning before requesting intervention

User Thucyd is repeatedly attempting to insert his own personal bias into this article. His edits rely almost exclusively on commentary by conservative media pundits such as Ross Douthat, Edward Pentin and Sandro Magister to form the dominant narrative of the article. The opinions of these commentators are not historically significant and do not belong in an enyclopedic article about Amoris Laetitia. The only academic source that Thucyd cites is an article by James Keenan in Theological Studies, but Keenan does not support the statement for which he is cited (that the bishops' guidelines are contradictory). Keenan's article is available here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0040563916681995

Thucyd's edits violate the requirements for Neutral Point of View, Original Research and Reliable Sources:

• Wipedia is not a newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper or online news site. Most newspapers are journals of current news, reporting current events in the world. Some newspaper articles are features that contain longer coverage and analysis. Newspapers can also disseminate the opinion of those who write them or expose secrets or lies. Newspapers write information that may be subjective in nature. Wikipedia does none of these things. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity."
• Moreover, news outlets are subject to heightened scrutiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
• Moreover, wikipedia articles need to adhere to objectivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject."
• Editorials, columnists' opinions and op-eds are defined by Wikipedia policy as primary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Are_news-reporting_media_secondary_or_primary_sources? As such, they cannot be used to offer analysis of other primary sources (e.g., the bishops' guidelines.). "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

The latest "news" about what someone said about Amoris Laetitia is not historically significant. Opinions and analysis in news outlets are primary sources, are not historically significant and cannot be used to offer an analysis or interpretation of the subject matter of the article.

Thucyd's proposed edits are in clear violation of Wikipedia's quality standards. I am reverting to the prior version of the article. If Thucyd continue's to push his biased perspective based on unreliable primary sources, I will request intervention on WikiProject Catholicism.PluniaZ (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't wish to get involved in your edit war, but both of you now when reverting each other have carelessly overwritten my intermediate edits. If you can't be bothered to incorporate changes made between revisions when you do wholesale reversions, this is a sign that you shouldn't be doing them. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have added back in your latest edits.PluniaZ (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, believe me, I understand and respect your bias, but do you realize that you do not want to see Ross Douthat in this article just because he is a conservative and wrote a book you don't like on the topic with many recensions. You reject a liberal journalist in the Guardian who approves Ross Douhtat, because, well, he approves Ross Douthat who is a conservative, you reject a theologian who approves a liberal journalist and Ross Douthat who is a conservative, and Sandro Magister not because he is the most famous living vaticanist but, well, because he is a conservative, therefore he should not be mentioned. In a nutshell, you reject all reliable sources that do not fit the narrative based on your anti-conservative prejudice.

You did not comment on my latest modification of the lede, which respects your conception of the NPOV, and deleted all the edits and the reliable sources!

Frankly, are you seriously making the extraordinary and laughable claim that some guidelines do not contradict other guidelines?

Just for example, read this analysis on the implementation of AL by Matthew Bunson: "In fact, no sharper disparity in the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia could be found than in the first U.S. guidelines issued by Archbishop Chaput and by Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, in the immediate aftermath of the promulgation of the document.... The German, Belgian and Maltese declarations are at severe variance with the statements of the bishops of Kazakhstan and Alberta and the Northwest Territories in Canada... Two years into the debate over Amoris Laetitia, the lamentable gulf among bishops seems to be growing even wider. " [1]

I hope that you will reconsider your position, come back to the previous version and improve it. If you still refuse to do so, can you please request an intervention? Thucyd (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thucyd, Ross Douthat's columns are primary sources by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Are_news-reporting_media_secondary_or_primary_sources. Matthew Bunson's "Analysis" in the National Catholic Register also falls under this definition of a primary source. As such, these opinion columns cannot be used to analyze or offer perspective on other primary sources. The same applies to Sandro Magister's columns and blog entries, and to Father De Souza's column in Crux, and to Ed Condon's column in the Catholic Herald. These are all opinion pieces and by definition primary sources. Compiling them together to make an analysis of Amoris Laetitia is original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia's policy on original research, which states:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

• Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
• Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

There are as of now no secondary sources that provide a comprehensive analysis of the various bishops' guidelines. As such, all that is permissible under Wikipedia policy is to refer to the guidelines themselves "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." That is what the current version of the article does - it lists the bishops' guidelines and plainly states what they say, without analysis. Your personal opinion regarding the bishops' guidelines cannot be included in the article, nor can the opinions of Ross Douthat, Edward Pentin, Sandro Magister or any of the other columnists you cite. This is a requirement of Wikipedia policy, and you will lose on appeal.

If you do not concede within the next 24 hours, I will request intervention on the talk page for WikiProject Catholicism.PluniaZ (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The reference Ross Douthat is of course not a column, or a primary source, but a secondary source, a book on the topic with positive reviews including by prominent "liberals". Ed Condon's analysis is there to support the sentence: "many commentators have pointed out that...". Therefore this sentence is perfectly sourced (4 reliable sources, one is a book written by a conservative New York Times columnist, one by a theologian, one by a canon lawyer, another by a liberal journalist writing in the Guardian). Do you need more?

Ed Pentin, Matthew Bunson, Sandro Magister are secondary sources: they "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources." Do you need another secondary source? What about this article by Ines Martin (is she a conservative?). The title: "Once again, bishops around the world differ on 'Amoris' " [2]

Would you agree with a sentence in the implementation section which states that: "many analysts think that some of the pastoral guidelines contradict each other"?Thucyd (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you quote exactly what Douthat says in his book, and give a page cite?

All of your other sources are in fact primary sources by definition. They are opinion columns: "Editorials, opinions, and op-eds. The newspaper editorial staff announces its support for a proposed law. The syndicated columnist explains his idea for fixing the economy. (Defined as a primary source by policy.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Are_news-reporting_media_secondary_or_primary_sources?PluniaZ (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have Douthat's book in front of me, so I can quote you dozen of paragraphs about it. But let me quote the official summary of Douthat's book: "In To Change the Church, Douthat explains why the particular debate Francis has opened—over communion for the divorced and the remarried—is so dangerous: How it cuts to the heart of the larger argument over how Christianity should respond to the sexual revolution and modernity itself..."

As theologian Tara Burton wrote in her review of Douthat's book: "The debate over Francis’s papacy is as much about modernity as it is about doctrine...The question Douthat is asking is an important one, and one that’s itself having something of a cultural moment. Should we automatically assume that our current (post-sexual revolution, post-digital revolution, neoliberal, capitalist) cultural mores are the right ones?" [3]

As you you well know, even a liberal journalist in the Guardian agrees with this analysis: "The Catholic church has spent much of the past century fighting against the sexual revolution, much as it fought against the democratic revolutions of the 19th century, and in this struggle it has been forced into the defence of an untenable absolutist position, whereby all artificial contraception is banned, along with all sex outside one lifelong marriage. As Francis recognises, that’s not how people actually behave. The clergy know this, but are expected to pretend they don’t. The official teaching may not be questioned, but neither can it be obeyed. Something has to give, and when it does, the resulting explosion could fracture the church."

Your claim that all the reliable sources I mentioned are primary sources is desperate.

For example, I mentioned historian and theologian Matthew Bunson who wrote an "ANALYSIS". This is written in capital letters, just at the beginning of the article. Can you see it? Thucyd (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to cite Douthat's book you at least need to give a page number. The quotations you provided are not about Amoris Laetitia but about the papacy of Pope Francis as a whole. In any event, Douthat has no scholarly expertise on the issues raised by Amoris Laetitia, so his opinions are irrelevant to this article.

In order for an "analysis" in a newspaper to qualify as a secondary source, Wikipedia states the following: "The newspaper publishes a week-long series of articles on health care systems in the nation. This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information." Dr. Bunson's brief article is not "a major work that collects, compares and analyzes information", so it fails to qualify as a secondary source for purposes of Wikipedia. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Examples_of_news_reports_as_secondary_sources: PluniaZ (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Douthat has written a whole book on Amoris laetitia and its context, all the reviews of the book will tell you this. This book is a reliable secondary source. Your claim that a sentence which states "the particular debate Francis has opened over communion for the divorced and remarried" is not about Amoris laetitia is an example of what a bad faith user would do. For your information, the reviews of Douthat's book on Amoris Laetitia are also reliable secondary sources.

Matthew Bunson is a detailed analysis by an expert, not made of "one or two comments" as you wrote. The same goes for articles written by journalists like Pentin, this article already mentioned written by Ines San Martin, etc.

Gaming the system is never a good idea. Don't deny the facts, even if, due to your political bias, you don't like them. Thucyd (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, we're not getting anywhere. I'm taking this to the WikiProject Catholicism talk page.PluniaZ (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually since this is only a dispute between two editors, I am requesting a third opinion first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion PluniaZ (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Amoris laetitia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Having said that, I don't think either of you is going to like what I say. In a nutshell, I think that all of the disputed content, regardless of which version, should be removed or drastically shortened, per WP:UNDUE.
This article is about a post-synodal apostolic exhortation which, according to the intro, "covers a wide range of topics related to marriage and family life as well as the contemporary challenges faced by families throughout the world." It contains nine chapters, yet fully 85% of this article is about footnote 351! including virtually all the Background section, most of the Release section, and all of the Implementation section. Some descriptions of Amoris laetitia include expands on the topics and considerations of the two Synods on the family, and adds his own considerations to help us provide pastoral guidance to support and strengthen today’s families (here), offers a new vision of pastoral care that insists that the Church has a mission to accompany, discern, and integrate families into the Body of Christ, no matter the challenges in their lives (here), and such subjects as the centrality of love, compassion and forgiveness to family life; the special place of marriage; the gift of children; the role of the parish; and the spirituality, the bedrock of family life. (here). Yet, to all intents and purposes, this article is about nothing except the right of divorced and remarried people to receive the sacraments.
What I would recommend, then, is:

1. "The main theological point has been the question whether the Catholic Church can overturn her doctrine to respond to the sexual revolution and modernity" should not be at the start of any section, should not be in the lead at all, and should not be used anywhere without being prefaced by "writer Ross Douthat says...".
2. There should not be any Implementation section, either detailed or summarised, as long as it refers to only that one detail.
3. The Background section should be rewritten to adequately summarise all of the proceedings and conclusions of the 2014 and 2015 Synods on the Family. The paragraphs on Canon Law, doctrine and "magisterial development" should be removed. Their only function is to introduce a POV with regard to that one issue.
4. The Release section should be reduced (or expanded) so that it focuses on the document as a whole, and not that one detail.
5. All of the remainder should be collected into a single section, at the end, of not more than 500 words, with an appropriate, neutral heading. Editors should decide, through discussion, which are the most significant views and which are the most significant events, how much weight should be given each and what order they should go in. Secondary sources (books and news media) should be used in preference to diocesan statements etc., and they should not be used selectively. Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Scolaire, for providing a fresh pair of eyes for this article. When I first looked at the article over a year ago, I had similar thoughts - that the article focuses too much on one aspect of the Apostolic Exhortation, and that it is too long, given the dearth of secondary sources that evaluate Amoris Laetitia as a whole. I proposed a substantial shortening of the article along the lines you suggested, but this did not generate much traction among the community. But now that you raise the issue too, I think it would be a good idea to proceed in that direction.PluniaZ (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:Scolaire. Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion!

I think your opinion illustrates the major difficulty we have with this article. At first glance, with the current version, the non specialist reader cannot understand why it took two controversial synods to prepare this apostolic exhortation if the core of the text was some lengthy but nice pastoral considerations about love, family, sexuality, catholicism, etc. It seems absurd. Nobody needed this giant circus for one the most important catholic documents of the 20th century, Veritatis splendor.

But then the contradiction appears: why so many journalists speak of a "civil war in the Vatican" ([4]), of an "ongoing war", of a "heresy debate that divides the Church"? Why do we have hundreds of scholars engaged in this controversy for a single foonote? Why are bishops focused on this topic in their guidelines? After all, isn't it, according to your own words, one "detail"? My answer: it is definitely not a detail, it is the "heart of the matter". That's why secular media and analysts are in trouble when they have to explain the reasons of this "civil war": "The shift may seem like small beer to non-Catholics... The rebellion has grown to include not just arch-conservatives but also more middle-of-the-road Catholics who adhere to the church’s teachings on abortion and marriage and resent Francis’ flexible approach." ([5]). And that's why the vast majority of the reliable sources, and this article, is only focused on Chapter 8.

1) Regarding your first recommendation. According to you, the sentence, "the main theological point has been the question whether the Catholic Church can overturn her doctrine to respond to the sexual revolution and modernity". The sentence that was deleted by PluniaZ was "according to many analysts, the main theological point has been...". I thought it was important to put it in the lead because otherwise a non-specialist reader could not understand the reason why the secular media, scholars, bishops, have written almost exclusively on this question. But I would agree to put it in the section about the controversy, if we come back to the version that was deleted by PluniaZ. We could write something like: "according to some analysts, including conservative author Ross Douthat, the main theological point...".

2) I think the implementation section is of course not necessary, but some paragraphs could be useful if summarized. With this current version, the reader is lost, we have undue weight, indiscriminate collection of information relying on primary sources, and too many and too-lengthy quotations "incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style" (Wikipedia:LONGQUOTE).

3) Regarding the background section, it seems that your comment is about the current version, not about the version that was improved but deleted by PluniaZ. Still, I think that what you call "one issue", is for everyone, as I said, *the* issue, so that's normal and we do not have undue weight.

4) You think that the release section could be reduced. But that was already done in the now-deleted version.

5) We should clearly explain why what may seem "inside baseball" and "small beer" to non catholics is so important, and I agree with you: we should find reliable sources to develop other pastoral and theological points not strictly related to the this controversy.

Moreover, may I ask you your opinion about two specific points:

a) according to you, is Douthat's book a reliable secondary article about Amoris laetitia?

b) Is this article by Dr. Matthew Bunson a reliable secondary source about the implementation of Amoris laetitia? Thucyd (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to answer your comments and queries once, because that is part of the Third opinion process, but I'm not going to get dragged into a lengthy debate with you. That is for you and your fellow-editors to do:

The thrust of your argument is that this document, or its reception by Catholics generally, was purely about the issue of allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion (hereinafter called "the issue"), and that everything else is window-dressing. I quoted above from the synopses of three books, none of which even mentioned "the issue". That is not consistent with your argument. You ask why it took two controversial synods to prepare this apostolic exhortation if the core of the text was some lengthy but nice pastoral considerations about love, family, sexuality, Catholicism, etc. In response, I ask, why does "the issue" take up 10% of both the 2014 and 2015 synod articles (both of which highlight the number and variety of topics discussed), while it takes up 85% of this article? I acknowledge that there has been controversy over "the issue", and that some journalists have blown it up into a war or a schism, as journalists are wont to do, and that is why I recommend a single, separate section on "the issue". This being an encyclopedia, the section should be both concise and readable – neither of which is the case with the article as currently written – and that is why I recommend a limit of 500 words. The section could use words like "war" and "schism" as long as they were kept in context, were attributed, and were not given undue weight, e.g. by putting them near the start of the section. The lead should include a sentence saying there was controversy, but it should emphatically not talk about "overturning church doctrine", "sexual revolution", or any such emotive terms.

To address some of your specific issues:

• I read both versions of the article, as I always do before offering a third opinion. Every one of my recommendations applied equally to both versions.
• Douthat's book is a reliable source for Douthat's views. The real question is, what weight should be given to Douthat's views? Is he a pre-eminent authority on Catholic doctrine? I don't have the impression that he is. His "overturning church doctrine" quote might be used as a side-note in the Controversy section, if space allowed.
• Per WP:NEWSORG, Bunson's news article is a reliable source for facts, e.g. "some bishops in the Church have publicly disagreed over the questions of Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics". What weight should be given to his analysis again depends on whether he is considered a pre-eminent authority on Catholic doctrine. That is for participating editors to decide.

My work here is done. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"attempted remarriage"

@Elizium23: I believe the expression "attempted remarriage" is less clear than "civilly divorced and remarried". Veverve (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It is legally precise. A couple can have a Hindu attempt at remarriage, a pagan attempt at remarriage, or an Episcopalian attempt at remarriage, and they're exactly the same effect as doing it in front of the county clerk. Catholics who are divorced without a declaration of nullity are not capable of "remarriage". This is a legal field and we must use precise terms of art. Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I understand your reasoning, but for a person with no knowledge on the subject, no knowledge that marriage in Catholicism is an eternal bond unless the Pauline privilege is used, "attempted remarriage" does not mean anything apart from the fact that maybe someone made the marriage ceremony fail by kidnapping the bride or whatever.

Moreover, most article of specialised Catholic magazines use "divorced and remarried" (e.g. here, here before AL, here, here, here (non specialised), here) or "civilly remarried Catholics" (here, here). Veverve (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, I agree that the mainstream Catholic reporting is unanimous in these terms. The sources I have found with "attempted remarriage" consist of diocesan tribunal FAQs, and a few bishops speaking directly on it. Regrettably, this may just be a thing that has been dumbed-down by journalists. Elizium23 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: "remarried" is I think a bit vague, as it could include people whose spouse has died and who remarried. I think it is best to leave the expressions as they were on this page, as well as on Familiaris consortio and Canon 915, i.e. with expressions such as "divorced persons who have remarried" (to quote Familiaris consortio). Veverve (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)