Talk:Fratelli tutti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tense[edit]

Please describe Francis' writing of this encyclical in the present tense, not in the past, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style MOS:TENSE. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive quoting[edit]

Please add analysis as found in secondary sources rather than liberal quoting from the primary source, the encyclical itself. We do not want this article to become a WP:QUOTEFARM that merely regurgitates the encyclical word-for-word, and it is important for copyright purposes that we paraphrase and analyze the document instead of copy-pasting it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I tried to reduce the quotations as much as I could. What would you propose? Veverve (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, the "Universal fraternity" section is emblematic of this. It provides liberal quoting of the source material but almost no analysis thereof. What did critics say? What do pundits say? Furthermore, rather than quoting, summarize these quotes in paraphrases, in our own words. Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: I did the best I could. Veverve (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Coat of arms of Pope Francis
Coat of arms of Pope Francis

Created by Veverve (talk). Self-nominated at 23:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article was created within date. The references are extensive and well sourced. The talk page discussion over viability of sources has been resolved. Hook is certainly interesting and is certainly long enough. The editors have striven to write the article in a neutral tone. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section[edit]

Father Anthony Egan's column and Dr Annemarie Paulin-Campbell's column is merely a blog. I hope that we can remove this site (spotlight.africa) as a non-WP:RS and replace it with something better. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a blog it seems. Still, it is the opinion of people considered as qualified on the subject, so I am in favour of keeping their opinions. Veverve (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be difficult to find people who are both qualified on the subject and reliably published. There will be no dearth of opinions on this encyclical. It is against policy to keep these unreliable opinions. Elizium23 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium, this is not true - spotlight.africa is not 'just a blog'... see [1] it's one of South Africa's premier online Catholic news-sites... And if you're going to favour Crux or NCR over spotlight.africa that just shows US bias. Matthew Charlesworth (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcharlesworth: is Aleteia a blog wich is therefore not a reliable source? Veverve (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mcharlesworth, thank you for the link to the "About" page, which just proves what I already know: spotlight.africa has no editorial oversight and its moderators are more likely to remove offending comments than edit contributors' stories. It is a blog site -- an all-star blog, but at the end of the day, just a blog site. Elizium23 (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: I made no comment on Aleteia but I think spotlight is different
@Elizium23: There is an editorial board, with an Editor. See https://spotlight.africa/contributors/ - I know because I'm involved in the editorial process, which if it makes me biased on this it's only because I'm reliably informed and resent the inclusion of American Catholic News as 'News' and non-USA Catholic News sites as 'just blogs'. I'm not familiar with Aleteia's process but I'd say ours is more like Crux. And the reverse is true - we're more likely to allow comments (we'd moderate them on foul language and spam), and all the articles are edited by an editorial team. We have an Editor and Sub-Editors, and in South Africa the Southern Cross - the weekly Catholic newspaper - has folded - and so we are the only other reliable Catholic news source in South Africa. We do not claim to be a global news site, but we are not just a blog. Matthew Charlesworth (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: There is still two Aleteia references. I have asked if it is reliable here. I am in favor of keeping the references as well as the information it supports until we have more opinions concerning Aleteia's reliability. Veverve (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthony Egan line is non-notable, whereas the Dr Annemarie Paulin-Campbell comes from an institution, both fall within WP:RSEDITORIAL. As you rightly say, there will be no dearth of opinions on this encyclical, so I'm happy to see how it turns out. Pjposullivan (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, I will accept Fr. Patrick Briscoe writing on Aleteia due to his credentials as a religious priest. I think Aleteia as a blog aggregator needs to be considered author-by-author and not as a cohesive whole. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://spotlight.africa/about/

Reliably-published critics[edit]

@Elizium23: could you explain how is Taylor Marshall in his livestreams of any relevance or neutral enough to talk about this encyclical? Veverve (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, neutral enough? What are you talking about? Elizium23 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: his article states he is "Known for: Promoting traditionalist Catholicism", and the snapshot of the video you put shows Francis next to a statue which was thrown into the Tiber by someone considering it "do(es) not belong in a Catholic church" and violates the first commandment, and with Francis holding a hammer and sickle cross; the bias seems clear to me. More importantly, I still fail to see how his livestream is a reliable source. Veverve (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that Marshall's friend poisoned the well with that statue? Very curious. Elizium23 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: He is not his friend but his agent as Marshall "helped plan, fund purging of Pachamama idol" according to LFN (who provides a primary source, for lack of being itself a RS, in which Marshall and his friend confirm). Saying the encyclical is masonic, with a snapshot of the pope near an idol considered as pagan by some, and next to a communist cross; to me, it seems clear he is a propagandist for traditional catholicism (i.e. WP:FRINGE as well as being biased). Veverve (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: do you still maintain that Taylor Marshall's opinions are to be kept in the article? Veverve (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, yes, do you object? Can you offer policy-based arguments against it? Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jzsj am I to understand that you are referring to Taylor Marshall in your comments on the RFC? Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: WP:RSSELF: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Taylor Marshall is an obscure philosopher (he seems to have a faithful audience among online Cath. traditionalists, but that is about it) who is not recognized by others as an expert (in this case, I guess "others" are professional journalists published by reliable sources specialised into world religions, and academics working on the history of the Catholic Church). By the way, his recent 2019 book has received but bad critiques (e.g. here, here and here), which supports my point that he is not considered as an expert or reliable. Veverve (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, Marshall's work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, and is recognized by others as an expert. Bad critiques do nothing for the unreliability of a source. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: By who is he considered an expert to the point even his livestreams can be considered as RS? Veverve (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you arguing so vigorously about the reliability of Marshall? What is it about two small paragraphs of criticism that you want it out of the article so badly? Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: because WP strives for reliability. Therefore, unless it is necessary, unless one is compelled by circumstances, we should not make compromises. Veverve (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that that is the underlying reasoning, and my AGF is wearing thin. Elizium23 (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be in favor of including such privately published news commentaries from the right or left. Even if published as an editorial or commentary in a major news source I think it says much more about the commentator and similarly biased readers than about the encyclical or papal letter itself, and its place in mainstream Catholic teaching.Jzsj (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

Please do not restore "the risks of war is superior to its supposed benefits". It is bad grammar. Elizium23 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating the 'Reception' section[edit]

According to our essay, WP:CRITICISM, the best way to present controversy or criticism or reception of a topic is by integrating it into the article narrative. I see at least 5 paragraphs in the "Reception" section that apply to a particular section of the encyclical, and so could be appropriately integrated with those sections, rather than being isolated and "standalone", without context. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as I wrote here. Veverve (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Initial scope of this question: Category:Encyclicals of Pope Francis: e.g.

Regarding the "Reception" or "Criticism" section, should critical reception and analysis be exclusively confined to a single section, or should the majority be folded into the appropriate subheadings which represent topics included in the document? Please make reference to the essay WP:CRIT and the policy WP:NPOV for guidance. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the most part include well-sourced, noteworthy comments on parts of the encyclicals and letters as instructive asides in the section to which they pertain. Perhaps have a reception section with a few of the most notable observations on reception of the whole work. Try to avoid a separate criticism section and also criticisms from ideological fringe sources, which speak loads about the group commenting but little about this specific letter. If the letter is passably Catholic teaching, those who disagree with that teaching need not be mentioned. Perhaps their perspective can be noted under "See also" and directed to some article where that perspective is explained. Thanks for asking! Jzsj (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welfare"[edit]

There is a certain interplay between those who manipulate and cheat society, and those who, while claiming to be detached and impartial critics, live off that system and its benefits.

@Veverve:, on your revert, the article quoted is evidently wrong, as the original text of the encyclical has nothing to do with welfare benefits. It suffices to read the encyclical to understand the meaning of that sentence. --Dans (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dans: Well, this is what a reliable source says, and I believe it is a coherent way (one of many) to interpret this passage. "There is a certain interplay between those who manipulate and cheat society, and those who, while claiming to be detached and impartial critics, live off that system and its benefits." The passage is pretty nebulous, so Edward Pentin's exegesis is not incoherent. Veverve (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request[edit]

Specific points[edit]

  • In the document, Francis states that the COVID-19 pandemic has proven the failure of global cooperation during this crisis. Already edited; related to another point further down the article. The reasoning here seems circular: the pandemic proves that nations did not cooperate during the pandemic. This could just be because there's a word missing, possibly to describe an aspect of said pandemic; for example, if it were [...] Francis states that the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic has proven [...] it would make a little more sense. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: the pope wrote, and is quoted in the source as having written: ""As I was writing this letter, the Covid-19 pandemic unexpectedly erupted, exposing our false securities. Aside from the different ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident." Yes, the pope is vague and imprecise, as have been most popes. Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Using "exemplified" instead of "has proven" and removed "during this crisis". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pope insists that others who are different from us are a gift, and that the whole is more than the total of its single parts. This part is not quoted. Who does "us" refer to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it is about alterity in itself I think; i.e. you are different from me, your neighbour is different from you, Swedes are different from Irish, etc. Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Removed the use of "us" by saying "differences among people instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, dialogue of any kind does not involve the "watering down or concealing of our deepest convictions." To Francis, sincere and humble adoration of God "bears fruit not in discrimination, hatred and violence, but in respect for the sacredness of life." These two sentences may need to be reworked, as the article is starting to sound like persuasive writing here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know howI could make those sentences more neutral, your guess is as good as mine. Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I attempted to paraphrase that part, ending with a direct link to sanctity of life. How does it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pope noted that as of 2020 the feeling of belonging to a "single human family is fading" [...] Normalised {{As of}}. I don't understand why "as of" is required here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if I remember correctly, User:Elizium23 said words like "today" and "nowadays" were too unprecise, so he changed them to "October 2020". Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. "As of" appears to be modifying the risks and benefits of war (i.e., war risks and benefits in 2020), which doesn't appear to be what he's saying. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 23:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the encyclical, Pope Francis states that the COVID-19 pandemic has proven the failure of the world to work together during this crisis. Already edited. Same as above. Looking at the cited article,[1] Francis doesn't appear to be saying that the pandemic proved that the world failed to work together; he criticises the ways in which the pandemic is being handled, and how it is "exposing our false securities". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Used similar wording to the lede, but I think it should be appropriate.
  • To Francis, politics is not about "how many people endorsed me?" or "how many voted for me?", but rather about "how much love did I put into my work?" and "what real bonds did I create?" Tone is slipping into persuasive writing again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to make it sound more neutral, as those kind of poetic writings are pretty difficult to summarise. Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. It might be better for other secondary sources to make their own interpretation to avoid running afoul of WP:NOR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesuit James Martin praises the encyclical for "ratif[ying] a change in church teaching. In this case, on the death penalty." The second part of the quotation doesn't have proper sentence structure as it lacks a verb. What about something like [...] the encyclical for condemning the death penalty? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix it. Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Grand Orient of Italy, through its official magazine Erasmo, praises the encyclical, saying the "idea of universal brotherhood as a bond that unites all human beings, regardless of their faith, ideology, color, skin, social background, language, culture and nation" expressed in the encyclical "apertis verbis [in explicit words] in an absolutely new tone" is "a thought that is close to the ideals that have been the very foundations of Freemasonry from the very beginning".

    This sentence is an entire paragraph in itself. Is it necessary to mention the medium in which the Grand Orient of Italy expressed its opinion (Erasmo)? The quote "apertis verbis in an absolutely new tone" seems to be a parenthetical thought that can be safely excised; the second clause's verb is pushed near the end.     —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well add the name of the magazine. "apertis verbis in an absolutely new tone" can be removed. "the second clause's verb is pushed near the end": I am not an expert in gammar, so please fix what you believe is needed. Veverve (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Did a minor tweak with mentioning the magazine and attempted to some summarising. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General observations[edit]

The following aren't copyedit issues themselves, but they might suggest a rewrite. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: I have done as best as I could and cannot do better. Veverve (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of the first person plural without an antecedent: A lot of the quotes include "we", "us", or "our" without establishing the group they designate. Is it supposed to refer to everyone globally, Catholics, another group? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the "us", "our", etc. designates the wole humanity, I believe. Veverve (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The audience is rather ambiguous. I remember reading somewhere that Francis intended this letter to be addressed to all mankind, while at the same time, the actual audience of an "encyclical letter" is the bishops of the world. It is called an encyclical because it is circulated amongst those bishops, to be read by them as instructions for teaching their flocks, and implementing on a local basis. I read the first few paragraphs and I don't see an actual focused addressing of one particular group. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
question mark Suggestion: It might be worth expanding on whom the encyclical is addressed to in this article's text (e.g., archbishops?). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing primary source material from secondary sources. I ended up asking this question at the help desk, and one of the respondents said: if you’re doing quotes go with the Holy See’s translation. Since most of the quotations I've seen on here seem to be only taking the quoted material from secondary sources, the citations used could be reoriented to the primary source page.[2] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the quotes are the Holy See's translation reused by secondary sources; those quotes are used because they have been judged relevant by secondary sources to try to avoid WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Not much I can do here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Looking forward to your responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Went through all of the specific points and tried to attempt summarising some of the stuff. I think the trouble you are running into is that the secondary sources are quoting passages that they feel should be relevant, but not making any particular interpretations of them. It might be worth looking for more secondary sources to get an idea of how scholars interpret the encyclical.
On a whim, I decided to check out some of the articles on Pope Leo XIII's encyclicals and some of them aren't very long (such as Quamquam pluries. Either way, that's beyond the scope of a copyedit and I think most of the period rearrangement is done. Anything else that still appears to be catching your eye? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: no, nothing, thanks! Veverve (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, cool! I'll consider the copyedit request complete then. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 01:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/04/world/europe/pope-francis-coronavirus-response.html
  2. ^ http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html

The risks of war[edit]

Reliable source: War can no longer be seen as solution, he adds, because its risks outweigh its supposed benefits. For this reason, he believes it is “very difficult” nowadays to speak of the possibility of a “just war.” this is clearly the correct grammar, because "outweigh" agrees with "risks" but "its" agrees with "War" (both times.) The supposed benefits of war. Risks don't have benefits. It's nonsensical. Elizium23 (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Legacy" section[edit]

@Elizium23: I do not see in this section nor in any of the sources used that the International Day of Human Fraternity of the UN has anything to do with Fratelli tutti. Having the same theme as the encyclical and using the word "Fraternity" does not mean the event and the encyclical are linked, and a fortriori that this event is part of the legacy of Fratelli tutti. Veverve (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fratelli tutti, the recent encyclical of Pope Francis on fraternity and social friendship, as well as the “Document on Human Fraternity”, signed by him and the grand imam of Al Azhar last year, have found a strong echo in the halls and corridors of the United Nations.

"This celebration responds to a clear call that Pope Francis has been making to all humanity to build a present of peace in the encounter with the other," stressed Cardinal Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot MCCJ, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. "In October 2020, that invitation became even more vivid with the Encyclical Fratelli tutti. These meetings are a way to achieve true social friendship, as the Holy Father asks of us," he added.

Elizium23 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters[edit]

@Scottop: I do not think having a summary of each chapter in the WP article is useful. I know most pages about papal documents have those, but I think those are useless. Moreover, your summary seems totally OR. Veverve (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scottop: do you have any objection to me removing the "Chapters" part? Veverve (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's opinion[edit]

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's opinion on Fratelli tutti has been published in L'Osservatore Romano, as La Croix reports. However, she is not an expert in the field of religious studies or of Christianity. Moreover, she does not seem to be very well known throughout the world. Therefore, I do not know if her opinion should be mentioned here. Veverve (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fratelli_tutti&oldid=1202134525"