Talk:Matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis

Good sources for nullity reforms
Elizium23 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * National Catholic Register
 * http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/not-so-fast-on-fast-track-annulments-canonists-say/
 * http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/with-annulment-reforms-pope-seeks-to-remedy-the-darkness-of-doubt/
 * http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/annulment-reform-6-misconceptions-and-6-developments/
 * In the Light of the Law blog
 * https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-second-look-at-mitis-especially-at-the-new-fast-track-annulment-process/
 * https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-first-look-at-mitis-iudex/
 * https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/note-avoiding-the-requirements-of-mitis-would-not-be-easy-for-bishops/
 * https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/who-is-satisfied-with-mitis-iudex/
 * https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/nah-that-twernt-no-smear/
 * https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/the-popes-niece-might-be-on-to-something/
 * Other
 * http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-reforms-annulment-process-9-things-to-know-and-share
 * http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/09/09/what_the_marriage_law_reforms_do,_and_what_they_dont_do/1170693
 * http://madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspx
 * http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/september-18th-2015/were-heading-for-catholic-divorces/?
 * Thanks! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just organized this section, and moved your comment and my response concerning Dr. Peters' blog to a new section below, so that editors such as I can cite the discussion and its evidence, argument, and conclusion as a precedent for citation of such blog on other Catholic canon law pages in the future. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 09:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Edward N. Peters, J.D., J.C.D. blog as reliable source
In the Light of the Law—This is a blog, but the author is noted canonist Edward N. Peters and it should be suitable as a WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk)
 * I heartily concur with this assessment. I have thought this for a long time, but I didn't know if there was a policy to back this up, or any other editor opinions on the subject. I agree, that this blog should be an admitable source. It was even cited by The Associated Press as a substantive commentary on the reforms; this alone makes it a real source, and not just some private blog. And Dr. Peters has been published numerous times by established 3rd-party publishers within the field of canon law, and cited countless times by the broader media as an authority within the field of canon law. Pope Benedict XVI appointed him a Referendary (expert on canon law) to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura; if the "Supreme Judge of the entire Catholic world" (cf. canon 1442) thinks that someone is an expert in his field, then in the words of another pope, "Who am I to judge?". His blog certainly meets WP:BLOGS. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 09:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No longer stub
I have tried to update the classification of the article, after responding to its stub status. If I have done this improperly please advise as to what I left out. Thanks! Jzsj (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to leave the assessment of an article to the experts. It's certainly not B-class. It's start-class at best: the coverage is very basic. And it's not high-importance. If you look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism assessment page, you'll see that high importance is for things like Thomas Aquinas and College of Cardinals. The best thing in a case like this is just to remove the "stub" rating and leave a blank. Then it will go into an "unassessed" category and somebody will pick it up and rate it in due time. I've done that. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150913000300/http://madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspx to http://madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)