Talk:Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops

If you feel you need to remove speculation, then remove all of it, including that from John L. Allen, Jr.'s reporting. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You were absolutely right in the edit summary that the synod has not issued a final report, and won't until next year. I was thinking in terms of this report being the final product, which is why I deleted the comment. You will please note, however, that I did remove speculative comments from John Allen. I thought what I was doing with Pell was exactly the same, and I wasn't trying to anything beyond keep the article up to date. --Briancua (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article mentions them in the lede, but doesn't elaborate on their actual role. Serten (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you check the section on 'Internal Church politics' you will see a few lines on the topic. --Briancua (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is wrong to write "divorced and civilly remarried" for two reasons. First, it is not a marriage according to the Catholic Church. It is an invalid attempt at marriage. Code of Canon Law, c. 1085. Secondly, civil marriages are only one way to invalidly attempt marriage. If a divorced person marries in a Hindu religious ceremony, that is also an invalid attempt. If they marry in an Episcopal Church, that is an invalid attempt. If they marry in a Jewish ceremony before a rabbi, that is still an invalid attempt. So you see that it is doubly wrong to write "divorced and civilly remarried". More sources are available upon request. I contend that the news sources propagating this inaccuracy are not the best WP:RS for information about Catholic doctrine. Should not Catholic doctrine be represented accurately according to the policy of WP:NPOV and WP:V?Elizium23 (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article was dangerously lopsided and I have restored some balance. Please do not delete viewpoints which do not agree with the likes of Crux and National Catholic Reporter, or we will be on to an NPOV dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean, but no one is really talking about someone married three times in a Hindu ceremony here. All the coverage I've read talks about divorced and civilly remarried couples. If you can find a source that says that's what the synod fathers were discussing, I'll reconsider my objection. Secondly, the vast majority of readers do not know what an "invalid attempt at marriage" is. Almost all will know what is meant by divorced and civilly remarried, however. See the section of the Manual of Style on vocabulary. Finally, I am not trying to push any agenda. You simply went and restored some things that you thought were deleted, but in reality had been moved elsewhere, and others that were properly sourced but for whatever reason you didn't like. I'm going to go back and make some reverts, explaining myself in the edit summaries along the way. Hopefully that way if you don't like something in particular you can point to it, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Briancua (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC) PS - From one of the sources you added, we read Cardinal Pell talk about "Communion for the divorced and remarried," not for those who invalidly attempt marriage. --Briancua (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I dislike the redlink Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that has been inserted in the article, but I leave it in – unless others are interested enough to express the same opinion. Although the theme for the October 2015 assembly is "the vocation and the mission of the family in the Church and in the contemporary world", it is likely that the public media will choose to present it as an attention-grabbing combination of Catholic Church and sex, and that it will then, unlike all the 13 previous ordinary general assemblies, have a Wikipedia article about it. I dislike pre-demanding an article on it and pre-deciding what title it should have. But I will not try to impose my likes and dislikes. Just a comment. Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wrote the above and, after a short absence, saved it, before finding that a stub article has now been inserted. Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article is littered with a fair few examples of quotes that don't seem to be attributed to anybody. For instance, right in the lead it says:

As presented in the media, the synod played out like a "daytime soap opera"...

This seems to suggest a uniform reaction of "the media", but if one looks to the sourcing, all one finds is that it is according to John L. Allen Jr., associate editor of Catholic news website Crux.

The section discussing the attitudes to gay Catholics expressed in the interim has a similar sentence.

The interim report included "a seismic shift in tone toward acceptance of gays".

If one clicks through to the sources, what one finds is that the Crux-hosted Associated Press report states that the "document produced at the halfway point of the meeting was praised by gay rights groups as a seismic shift in tone toward acceptance of gays". Which is an entirely different thing: without the qualification of saying that it was gay rights groups (which ones, incidentally?) who believe that there was indeed a "seismic shift in tone". Incidentally, the Wikipedia article doesn't actually say what the interim report said on this topic. The Washington Post source does actually report that quite well, as does the Josephine Mckenna-authored piece for Religion News Service/Crux. (Later on in the Wikipedia article, it does actually mention in passing one of the passages about homosexuality that was in contention in the interim report: the part about "gifts and talents to offer the Christian community". Quite why that isn't mentioned in the section on what the interim report said about gay Catholics, I'm not sure.)

This kind of loose use of sources continues in the third paragraph of the same section:

"Conservatives were outraged" about "a remarkable tone of acceptance extended to gays" in the interim report.

Who said this? Oh, another Crux-hosted Associated Press report. I mean, I'm not saying it's wrong—I'm sure whoever they were, they were suitably outraged. But even with quote marks around this, it is being said in the voice of Wikipedia, rather than being appropriately qualified as being the voice of an Associated Press reporter. Quotes without attribution aren't useful to the reader, and they are also explicitly against the Manual of Style (see MOS:QUOTE).

I see that the article is currently awaiting peer review. Consider this a contribution to that process. I'll have a look into fixing up some of these issues but I thought I'd rather put them here first in case I don't get around to it. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Tom. The article is dominated by a certain POV lent by many of the sources that were heavily used. I attempted to provide some balance by using non-dissenting Catholic sources but I see I missed a few points. Let's see what we can do about them. Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am all for anything that would improve the article, but the fact that you would use a phrase like "non-dissenting Catholic sources" suggests a certain POV on your part as well. --Briancua (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify: I was not making a point about NPOV or the lack thereof, or the choice of sources. The sources I reviewed all look reasonably reliable if credited properly in-text. (That's not to say there aren't POV issues, but none stuck out to me on reading. Also, as a gay atheist—albeit one with a Jesuit education—I'm not necessarily sure I'm attuned enough on the subject matter to detect egregious POV pushing when it comes to sources reporting on the proceedings of the Vatican.)

The important thing is that the article does not currently properly attribute the remarks of journalists to those journalists. Quotes with no attribution can be a fair and factual reportage of the facts on the ground, but without attribution the reader does not benefit in anyway. When the point of an article is about an assembly of bishops discussing the theology of the family, it matters who said what, especially as plenty of people will—for theological or political ends—wish to weigh in on what the assembly said, what the interim report said, what they wish the report said, and their take on it given the context. I'll have a look at the article again shortly and see if I can tidy up some of the issues I've raised. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am not particularly fond of articles that are full of "According to so-and-so," but your point is well taken. As someone who works often and deeply with words, I can often find fault with the way the Church communicates, and want this (and all) articles to really express the subject matter in a way that can be understood by the average lay reader. For example, I cringe every time I see the words "intrinsically disordered" in the press as it relates to the Church and homosexuality. It is true that the Church teaches that homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered, but it is using the phrase in a much deeper teleological sense than the average reader without a degree in philosophy is going to understand. If we can improve the article without falling too far into either direction I would be very much in favor, and would appreciate your help in so doing. --Briancua (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've started reworking the section on the interim report's attitude to homosexuality. In this diff, I've rejigged most of the first paragraph of that section so that it gives a straightforward report of what the report said. I've added a second paragraph that describes the reactions: the Associated Press reporter that the article was already using (but I've now credited it in text), Rev. James Martin (as quoted in The Advocate), the US Catholic gay group DignityUSA and Cardinal Donald Wuerl. It'd be good to add some more quotes from opponents of the language used.

I haven't tackled the last paragraph yet with the "Conservatives are outraged" bit. I'm tempted to shunt that up into the third paragraph, so we have a clear progression of first paragraph saying what happened, second paragraph describing the reaction of gay groups and those in support of the changes, third paragraph describing the opposition to the it, then the fourth paragraph describing what happened next.

I hope this change is an improvement and I hope I have written it in a neutral fashion. I'll try and find some more time this weekend to try and fix a few of the other issues I've raised above and try to improve the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If this was the Third, what and when were the First and Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops? – Kaihsu (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is explained in the article Synod of Bishops (Catholic) which I have wikilinked prominently in the lede sentence for your convenience. I thought it was kind of buried where it was before that. Elizium23 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just want to register my perplexity at the statement in the article that the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops is popularly known as the Synod on the Family, doing so on the basis of someone's remark somewhere within a long video. I will not further argue about it but am only, as I said, registering my perplexity at having an encyclopedia (no mere magazine) make this declaration about an assembly that was popularly presented by the media rather as about reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried people (with or without a family), cohabitation without marriage (with or without a family), homosexuals (probably without a family), while "the Christian Family" was the precise topic of a different assembly and the coming 2015 assembly will be on "the vocation and mission of the family in the Church and in the contemporary world". Esoglou (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I rolled back that citation, for several reasons. First of all, I am perplexed that you saw it called anything other than the Synod on the Family in the press. In fact, this article had a different title when I first wrote it, and it was only several days later when I finally tracked down the official name for it that it was moved to its current location. If you look at the references, several of them have "Synod on the Family" in the title, and I'd venture to say that most if not all of them talk about the Synod on the Family in the body. To your point about the 2015 Synod being on the topic of the family, you will see that this synod was held "in preparation for a larger synod with the same theme in October 2015" and that this synod was "the first of "two stages, forming a single organic unity." What do you think should it should be called instead? --Briancua (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it is better to simply provide the analasyse of the bishops, then to give my own POV. It was a very objective addition. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What you have done is add a WP:COPYVIO directly copy-pasted from LifeSiteNews. You have been warned. Don't restore it again. Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The event described in this article does not appear to be notable. Per Wikipedia policy, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

This means that there need to be reliable secondary sources addressing the event. But this article relies entirely on primary sources - news article and columns. These are primary sources according to Wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Are_news-reporting_media_secondary_or_primary_sources? Moreover, nearly all the sources are articles from Catholic media outlets. The lack of "significant coverage" from a mainstream news outlet suggests that this event was not notable. The only secondary source regarding the synods is Ed Pentin's book, which is available only in Kindle edition.

I recommend this article for deletion. Thoughts?PluniaZ (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

PluniaZ made a series of edits deleting large sections of text, sometimes with reasons provided in the edit summary, and sometimes without. I restored much of it. I disagree with some of the stated reasons, like that a particular statement is editorializing. If it is, the solution to to edit the prose to make it encyclopedic, not to delete entire sections of text. I also am not aware of anything that says you should delete text because many of the sources have the same author. Of course, additional sources are always welcome. When searching for them, we should keep in mind that sources can be WP:BIASED; it is we the editors who can not. Additionally, this article has been stable for more than a year, with only a handful of minor tweaks made here and there. This shows there has been a WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for this version. PluniaZ, like all editors, is welcome to make edits here. However, when so many are overturned, the WP:BRD process recommends that consensus is gained here on the talk page first before anything drastic is done. For this reason, I am reverting, though I would be glad to collaborate to improve specific areas of concern. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let's go through this edit by edit.

First - The "soap opera" statement is John Allen's characterization of the synod. It is not a fact. It is one person's (John Allen's) opinion. Since John Allen's article is a primary source (it is a commentary article in a magazine and thus at best a news article per WP:USEPRIMARY), this source can only be used to establish facts.

Second - "Begged". Again, John Allen's opinion. Same objection as preceding point.

Third - "Humanae Vitae". Here Allen makes a sweeping generalization about the reception of Humanae Vitae without giving any specific examples or evidence. Again, per WP:USEPRIMARY,『primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.』This cannot be done with the source given.

Fourth -"pitched battles". Same as the Third point above. This statement cannot be verified and is not directly supported by the source given.

Fifth -"generational splits". Same as Third and Fourth points. Douthat claims this from secondhand sources in an opinion column. It is not a fact that is verified by the source given.

Sixth -"interim report". The first source given is no longer available. The Crisis magazine source is a primary source that cannot be used to justify this statement of opinion in the article per WP:USEPRIMARY.

Seventh- Odon Vallet - he gives his statement in news interview which is a primary source by policy per WP:USEPRIMARY. Since Vallet isn't giving a verifiable fact, it is an opinion and therefore cannot be allowed. And Rorate Coeli is a blog and absolutely cannot be allowed as source for any article on Wikipedia.

Eighth -"reassured" the source given is no longer available.

PluniaZ (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this. I think you are a bit mistaken, however. First of all, remember that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "Primary sources canbereliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation." Secondly, according to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." This applies to points 1, 3, 4, and 5. Those are clearly all opinion pieces providing commentary and analysis. For point 2, I don't really see a problem with "begged" in quotation marks, but I wouldn't object to changing it to "asked." For points 6 and 8, there are 16 mentions of the interim report, so I'm not sure which sources you are concerned about. However, we should Keep Dead Links. It may also be possible to find the originals on places like the Wayback Machine. Finally, Rorate Cæli is absolutely a WP:BIASED source. Fortunately, sources can be biased. Since the original quotation is supposedly found in a French newspaper, it should be easy enough to find the original source. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your quote from WP:PRIMARYNEWS is from one university library's view of primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia policy is specifically stated later in the article: "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.)" As such, all of the sources given for the statements at issue (and indeed, every source for this article) is a primary source and therefore per Wikipedia policy can only be used『to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.』 All of the statements I deleted are opinions, or at best interpretations and syntheses of facts, and therefore cannot be allowed in the article when the only source is a primary source.

My sixth point regarding "interim report" was about this statement in the section on Commentary by Outside Groups: "The interim report aroused controversy by its strongly conciliatory talk with regard to people whose lifestyle contradicted Catholic teaching, particularly those involved in civil marriage after divorce, cohabitation without marriage, and same-sex unions." If you read the two sources given, that statement is not supported in either of them. Moreover, describing the interim report's talk as "conciliatory" and declaring that certain people's lifestyle "contradicted Catholic teaching" are opinions and therefore cannot be sourced to a primary source.

Regarding my eighth point, thank you for finding the archive of the source, but the rest of that section should be removed per my above points, so the sentence would have to go elsewhere in the article.

Rorate Coeli is a blog and blogs cannot even be used as primary sources per WP:UGC: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, IMDb, Ancestry.com, content farms, most wikis, including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluniaZ (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think the more appropriate example is still below that under analytical reports. The pieces by Allen were not a series of one offs, but a continued effort that provided context to the Synod. I have also found the archive of the broken URL you mentioned and added it. For your edification, all outside URLs are archived within about 24 hours of being added to Wikipedia. Unless it's very old, you should be able to find any broken link sources. I've also reconsidered Rorate Coeli, and do believe you're right. It probably isn't appropriate as a source here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:PRIMARYNEWS says the following is a secondary source: "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." That is not what Allen's articles are. They are his own opinion columns, subject to review by no one (he is the editor of his own online magazine). He did not compile a major work that collects, compares and analyzes information. Aside from the eighth statement in my list (and "begged", which you changed) all of the other problematic statements I identified are in violation of Wikipedia policy and need to be deleted.PluniaZ (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would also add the following statements also need to be deleted for the same reasons I gave above:

In "Interim Discussion Document", the following needs to be deleted: " described as "one of the more noted theological minds in the Italian hierarchy"[39] and "known for pushing the pastoral envelope on dealing with people in 'irregular' unions while staying true to Catholic doctrine."[25] He was criticized for trying "to drive the synod forward" by including "stunningly positive language" for those in such unions instead of simply summarizing the first week's discussions.[42] It is thought that "conservative backlash"[42] to this text resulted in the "reworked [and] considerably more cautious terms" in the final document.[23] Among other reasons, the document was controversial as a mention of the law of gradualness was perceived to be employed in a sense that had been rejected by Pope John Paul II in 1981 and by the Pontifical Council for the Family in 1997.[43]"

In "Gay Catholics", the following sentence: "The importance given to it in the interim report led a journalist to remark that the written submissions that the drafters of the interim report had at their disposal may have included it.[25]"

In "Divorced and Remarried Catholics", the following sentence: "Going into the synod, reporter John L. Allen, Jr., said that the "granddaddy of all controversial issues" was the issue of whether or not Catholics who had divorced and remarried could receive Holy Communion without first receiving a declaration of nullity.[4]" This sentence is just gossip and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia: "After the Synod, reports surfaced that a group of conservative bishops upset with the prospect of changing practice regarding Communion for the divorced and remarried sought a meeting with and counsel from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.[52] These reports were not true, according to an aide to the retired pontiff."

In "Report of the Synod", this sentence is not sourced: "However, by decision of Pope Francis, these too were included in the final document." This is not a statement of fact, but an analysis/opinion: "However, journalists saw in the voting figures a strong indication of where the fault lines had been in 2014 and may be again in 2015, although it is hard to tell how many voted no because they saw the text as too bold, and how many did so because they saw it as not bold enough."

In "Paragraphs without two-thirds support", this sentence is merely John Allen's characterization: "Other bishops were happy at the removal of language ("welcome", "positive elements") in the interim report that "could be read as code-words for the Catholic Church going soft on its moral teaching."[23]"

PluniaZ (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for your welcome contributions, PluniaZ. A few things, though. When you make huge single edits, it makes it difficult to work and to see the reasons for each. I find that making smaller edits is usually better, especially when they are contentious. Secondly, I'm sorry I wasn't able to work on this over the weekend, but we really didn't come to a consensus here before you made those sweeping changes.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding when primary sources can and cannot be used. As you point out, they can be used『to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.』 For example, you deleted "Surprise was expressed at the maintenance in the final document of these three paragraphs" by saying it was a "non-factual statement attributed to a primary source." The source says, however,『The fact that these three points remain in the document despite only having a “qualified majority” has surprised some observers.』 That is a straightforward statement clearly supported by the source, even if it is a primary source. It is acceptable to use here. You also, in your next edit, deleted "The report was only a preparatory document for the larger synod of about 250 members that would take place on 4-25 October 2015 on the "vocation and mission of the family in the church and the modern world"" by saying it was "opinionated/commentary." I'm not sure how much more of a straightforward statement there could possibly be than that.

Again, I would ask you to please gain consensus here for any of the changes you want to make before you make them, and remember that there is WP:NOHURRY. Thanks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am requesting a third opinion.

In response to the specific points you made, the statement,『The fact that these three points remain in the document despite only having a “qualified majority” has surprised some observers.』is meaningless because the source doesn't say who was surprised. The source only quotes an anonymous source. Per WP:RSBREAKING, we are to "distrust" anonymous sources. Hence, this statement needs to come out. Likewise, the statement that the report is "only preparatory" is in fact an opinion if there is no official statement from the Catholic Church stating that as a fact. Moreover, none of the underlying sources state that the synod document is "only preparatory", so that statement needs to come out regardless of whether you view it as an opinion or a fact.

With respect to all the statements in the article I deleted, they are either (1) statements of opinion attributed to a primary source or (2) statements of fact that are not supported by the sources provided. For example, the statement that "written regulations" require a two-thirds majority is not found in any of the sources given. If you review the underlying sources, you will see that all of the statements I deleted are either statements of opinion/interpretation and/or not actually supported by the source given. If you disagree, you need to explain why on this talk page for each edit, as I have done.

Moreover, leaving in the introductory section the claim that the synod "played out like a soap opera", based solely on one reporter's claim to that effect, is manifestly in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:RSUW and WP:PRIMARYNEWS.

You have also not responded to the other substantive points I made above but have nevertheless unilaterally overruled nearly all of my changes. I fail to see how it is justified for you to unilaterally overrule my edits when I have carefully explained how the edits are necessary to comply with Wikipedia community policy (which overrules any limited consensus this article may have achieved in the past per WP:CONLIMITED) and you have not offered a response.

PluniaZ (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you SKay. I agree with your assessment. My initial concerns regarding this article stemmed from a misunderstanding of the page WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I was under the mistaken belief that this was an official policy page, but it turns out it is just one user's essay with their opinions on what constitutes a primary or secondary source. The actual policy on news sources as secondary sources can be found at WP:OR. Below are the changes I would propose to fix WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE:

• All of the second paragraph should be deleted other than the last sentence regarding African bishops, which should be moved to the end of the first paragraph. This entire paragraph violates WP:NPOV and is written in a tone that denigrates the subject of the article (e.g., saying that the synod "played out like soap opera" poisons the well before the reader has even started reading the article).
• The paragraph on the "lead author" Bruno Forte is speculative and gives WP:UNDUE weight to John Allen's opinions. The article containing Allen's criticisms is written in a silly tone ("the oscar for ... goes to ...") that disqualifies it from being a serious analytical secondary source. The one source given in this paragraph that isn't by Allen, Nicole Winfield's piece, is cited in the following section on "Gay Catholics", which covers the substance of this paragraph in all the necessary detail. This paragraph should be deleted, and the following sentence should be added to the section on Gay Catholics: "The author of the section on gays was Brunoe Forte, who is 'known for pushing the pastoral envelope on dealing with people in 'irregular' unions while staying true to Catholic doctrine.'" with a cite to Nicole Winfield's article.
• The "law of graduality" is more commonly referred to as the "law of gradualness". Aside from Allen, I have not seen anyone call it the "law of graduality". Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis call it the law of gradualness. Thus, in the article, the word "graduality" should be replaced with "gradualness."
• The statement, "there are gradations of virtues and vices, and that living situations need not be either completely good or completely evil" is not supported by the source given, so that statement needs to be deleted. It should be replaced with the statement, "people move toward the virtues through stages and at different speeds", which is supported by the source given as well as the later source authored by Akin, which should be cited here.
• The remainder of the discussion of the law of gradualness goes into technical areas of history and theology that are beyond the competence of a magazine column to encapsulate. The second paragraph in this discussion should be deleted because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to Allen's views. The final sentence in this paragraph, while citing another source, does not make any reference to the law of gradualness, so it needs to be deleted.
• The statement, "the document was controversial as a mention of the law of gradualness was perceived to be employed in a sense that had been rejected by Pope John Paul II in 1981 and by the Pontifical Council for the Family in 1997" is sourced to Jimmy Akin. While Jimmy Akin is a popular Catholic lay apologist, he appears to have no specialized training in Catholic history or theology - no advanced degrees and no academic teaching experience. Thus, his opinion alone that the interim document was written in a way that conflicts with prior understanding of the law of gradualness does not deserve mention in this article. Moreover, the statement that the interim document was "controversial" for this reason is not supported by any source given.
• The statement, "Going into the synod, reporter John L. Allen, Jr., said that the "granddaddy of all controversial issues" was ..." violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and should be deleted.
• The statement, "won a simple majority but did not qualify as a two-thirds consensus" is not supported by the source given. The source does not mention any "qualification" that is achieved by getting two-thirds of the vote. A more neutral statement would be "won a simple majority but not two-thirds of the vote."
• The paragraph on a group of bishops wishing to speak with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and this turning out to be a debunked rumor, is speculative rumor-mongering that has no place in an encyclopedic article.
• The statement, "Three failed to gain the two-thirds approval that the written regulations required for inclusion in the final document" is not supported by the source given. No source states that any "written regulations" require a two-thirds approval. This statement needs to be deleted.
• The statement "Surprise was expressed at the maintenance in the final document of these three paragraphs" is sourced to an article that doesn't name a single person as being "surprised." The article quotes an anonymous source who doesn't express any "surprise" but gives his opinion that these causes should be rejected. An anonymous opinion does not deserve any weight at all in an encyclopedic article.
• The statement, "The report was only a preparatory document ..." is not supported by any of the sources given.
• Given that there is an entire section on the paragraphs without two-thirds support, all discussion on this topic should be consolidated into that section.
• The statement that certain language could be treated as "code words" is John Allen's opinion and needs to be deleted to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
• The statement, "It was said that he was "striving mightily to hold the [conservative and progressive] camps together"" is John Allen's opinion and needs to be removed to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
• The statement, "The "kind of pitched battles between reformers and traditionalists witnessed in this synod" had not been seen since the Second Vatican Council" is a sweeping historical claim that John Allen Jr. lacks the credential and expertise to validate. This should be deleted.
• The statement that Cardinal Schönborn described "divisions" at the Synod is not supported by the source given. Schönborn does not refer to "divisions." The article says he refers to a "situation". Accordingly, the word "divisions" should be replaced with "situation."
• The statement, "Some reporters have suggested several leaders of the progressive camp were German-speaking, while many of the conservatives were from Africa" mischaracterizes the underlying source. This sentence should be restated as follows: "While several prominent German bishops advocated a more compassionate tone overall on sexual morality, opposition to this approach was voiced by several prominent Africa bishops."
• The statement, "There was a 1970s generation that seeks cultural accommodation and a younger, John Paul II-era that seeks to be countercultural" is Ross Douthat's opinion from a newspaper column. Per WP:OR, "opinion pieces" are primary sources and can only be used to verify statements of fact. This statement should be deleted.
• The final section of the article, "Commentary by Outside Groups", does not contain any actual commentary by any "outside group". The one outsider whose opinion is discussed is Odon Vallet. The first statement in this section, "The interim report aroused controversy by its strongly conciliatory talk with regard to people whose lifestyle contradicted Catholic teaching ..." has nothing to do with commentary by outside groups and is already adequately covered in the section on the article on the Interim Report. It also does not make sense in the flow of the article to end the article by returning to a discussion of the interim report. This sentence should be deleted. Likewise, the final sentence is about Pope Francis' closing speech, for which there is already an entire section of the article. This sentence should be moved there. The discussion of Vallet's views should be moved to the end of the section on the interim report, since that is what it addresses. The statement, "Vallet said that if Pope Francis continued along the lines that Vallet attributed to him, he risked, if not an outright schism, at least a division between him and priests and people" is not supported by the source given and should be deleted. For some reason Rorate Coeli is still cited in the article. I will remove that.

Thank you once again SKay for reviewing these issues. I would appreciate your thoughts on the changes I propose above. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comment: I agree that work should be done to cut out such hype words, but try to replace them rather than cut sections out of the article. Quotes like "daytime soap opera" do not belong in the Summary paragraph, certainly. "Irregular Unions" could be changed to better describe exactly what unions they are referring to.

• "Background"

• I'm not sure what paragraph you are referring to that lists Bruno Forte as the lead editor. This is the only reference to him I noticed, and it appears fine.

"Archbishop Bruno Forte, selected by Pope Francis as the Synod's special secretary, said before the Synod that 'the doctrine of the church is not up for discussion, but the synod members will be called upon to find ways to improve the pastoral application of church teachings, ways to explain it and to help Catholics live it.[18]'"

• "Law of Graduality"

• Regarding the "law of graduality", it is listed as such in a Wikipedia Article.
• Anything not directly attributed to a source may be challenged at will and deleted. This is Wikipedia Policy, not up for debate.
• I don't feel it is our place to question the aptitude of our sources, only the truthfulness. A quick read over this section didn't raise any red flags about its factual accuracy.

• "Paragraphs Without Two-Thirds Support"

• I would not object to a topic's merger into this section, however if the topic is notable enough to warrant its own subsection that should be addressed.

Hope this helps! SKay (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much SKay. That was a lot to read through and I really appreciate the time and effort you put into helping out with this article. I think the article will be a lot better with these improvements. Thank you again. -- PluniaZ (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply