Analysis Summary:

The article is mostly accurate regarding the rules of the conclave and the role of older cardinals. The primary claim about older cardinals having "thoughts on the proceedings" is difficult to verify directly but plausible. There is a slight bias towards highlighting the opinions of those excluded from the formal voting process.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** Older cardinals can't vote in the conclave.
  • Verification Source #1: Supports this claim, stating that cardinals under 80 can vote.
  • Verification Source #3: Mentions "133 cardinal electors," implying a limited number of voters.
• Claim:** Older cardinals have thoughts on the proceedings.
• This is difficult to verify directly without the full article content. It is a plausible statement, but its accuracy depends on the specific content of the article.
• Claim:** The conclave is in progress (implied by the title and date).
  • Verification Source #3: Indicates the conclave is happening with the mention of "133 cardinal electors will use to choose the 267th Roman Pontiff."
  • Verification Source #5: Confirms the conclave is in progress with the mention of "Black smoke billows as cardinals' first conclave vote yields no new..."
• Claim:** Cardinals are the senior-most clergy in the Catholic Church behind the pope.
  • Verification Source #1: Supports this claim.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #1: "Cardinals – the senior-most clergy in the Catholic Church behind the pope – who are under age 80 at the time of..." This supports the claim that only cardinals under 80 can vote.
• Verification Source #3: "These are the words printed on each ballot that the 133 cardinal electors will use to choose the 267th Roman Pontiff." This supports the claim that the conclave is in progress.
• Verification Source #5: "Black smoke billows as cardinals' first conclave vote yields no new..." This supports the claim that the conclave is in progress.
• The claim about older cardinals having "thoughts" is not directly supported or contradicted by the provided sources, but it is plausible. The bias comes from the focus on those excluded from voting, potentially giving undue weight to their opinions.