Talk:Gaudet Mater Ecclesia

Replacing the previous version
Gaudet mater Ecclesia is pope John XXIII's address at the opening of the Second Vatican Council. The Wikipedia article provides a summary of this address. I have removed the previous version of the summary and replaced it with my own. Here I'm explaining why.

The previous version was lacking any references to the text of the address (except in one case).

The previous version was either mistaken or misleading a number of times:

1. From the previous summary: “Pope John stressed the pastoral, not doctrinal, nature of the Council”. While the pope definitely says the Council should be pastoral, he never says “not doctrinal”. The previous summary doesn't seem to understand what the pope means by "pastoral". It means a teaching that does not issue condemnations. The summary quotes the sentence "to use the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity", but never explains that “the weapons of severity” that are to be avoided are condemnations. In brief: "pastoral" means "without condemnations", not "non-doctrinal".

2. From the previous summary: “The Church did not need to repeat or reformulate existing doctrines and dogma.” While the pope says doctrine does not need to be repeated, he does not say it does not need to be reformulated. In fact, the whole point of the address is that it is necessary to reformulate doctrine in order to make it accessible to modern man. And the previous summary fails to mention one of the most memorable passages in the address: “For the deposit of faith, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, are one thing; the fashion in which they are expressed, but with the same meaning and the same judgement, is another thing.”

3. The previous summary quotes the following passage: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively defended and presented”, but does so completely out of context. By quoting only this sentence, it gives the impression that the greatest concern of the Council is defence, when the whole thrust of the address is about presentation: presenting doctrine in a new way, rather than simply repeating the formulations of the past.

For these reasons, the previous summary had to be replaced by a more accurate summary, including references to, and quotations from, the actual text of the address. MDJH (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit the previous summary was not good. However, as I told you, if you quote so much from the text, as you have done (twice), you are probably making a copyright infringement. Moreover, the source for the English translation you massively quote is a WordPress blog which is likely to not be RS.
 * The previous version was lacking any references to the text of the address (except in one case)
 * ->How is it a problem? Not every text summary needs to have quotes from the material summarised. Veverve (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You admit the previous summary was not good. But all you did was revert my summary without doing anything substantive to improve the original summary. As Wikipedia editors, we are expected to work collaboratively.
 * You make 3 points:
 * 1. I am "probably making a copyright infringement". (Note "probably")
 * 2. The translation source is "a WordPress blog which is likely to not be RS". (Note "likely")
 * 3. "Not every text summary needs to have quotes from the material summarized"
 * Response to 2: The translation is by Joseph Komonchak, one of the foremost English-language historians of Vatican II. He is the English-language editor of the unsurpassed five-volume History of Vatican II. His translation even points out differences between various language versions of the address. This is RS of the highest order.
 * Response to 1: The translation is not from a book or an article in a scholarly journal. The author chose to post it online so that it is available to everyone.
 * Response to 3: Yes, a text summary does not need to have quotes from the material summarized, but a summary with quotes will usually be better than one without, since it will show the congruence between the summary and the actual text being summarized.
 * I intend reposting my original article, but with one change: some of the quotes will be shorter. MDJH (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * it is still a WP:SPS as well as a WP:primary source. Is there no official translation or at least a translation published by a reliable third party? Does the five-volume History of Vatican II not contain a summary of the speech which could be used in the article instead of making a summary yourself using the primary text? Veverve (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)