Talk:Maria Valtorta

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

On the Index

Noted that the book was placed on the Catholic Index in 1959, and did not receive an imprimatur.

Actually the book and its translations do carry imprimaturs from several Bishops. The Wikipedia page has a link to the imprimatur of Bishop Danylak.

Recent heavy POV-pushing

@Arkenstrone: I see you have been hard at work POV-pushing a narrative by various means.

1) adding unreliable

WP:BLOGs
and apologetic websites as sources:

  • valtorta.org
  • valtorta.org.au
  • mariavaltorta.com
  • maria-valtorta.net
  • Maria Valtorta Store
  • sacredheartofjesus.ca
  • bardstown.com
  • doclibs.org (a free webhost for a random document containing bold claims)
  • marysbalm.com.au
  • cathtruth.com
  • mariavaltortawebring.com
  • mariavaltorta.blogspot.com

Those are not reliable sources, but militant blogs and websites, as I had clearly explained in my numerous edit summaries and you copiously ignored those explanations.

2) restoring a whole paragraph completely unrelated to the content of the article that is OR and uses primary sources ("Regarding the issue of internal consistency and correspondence with the Gospels [...] since at least the time of André Marie Jean Jacques Dupin (1783–1865).")

Again, clearly explained.

3) violating

WP:BURDEN
by adding back unsourced content

Only reliable sources can be used on WP. OR is not accepted. WP:BURDEN is to be followed.

So, I have reverted your restoring. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV-pushing. The previous historical account was factually incorrect, or missing important information, for example that the Work was removed from the Index of Prohibited Books in 1962. This wasn't even mentioned, which suggests extreme POV-pushing by the other side. I've simply stated additional facts with primary sources to back it up.
I haven't removed any anti-Valtorta content just because they are anti-Valtorta. If it's factual (someone actually said it even if it is POV), and there is a source to back it up, and it's pertinent in context, then fine it deserves mention. But the same applies for pro-Valtora content. For example, the support that the Work has received by notable personages of the clergy. We want people to see both sides, not just one side.
The websites mentioned, while pro-Valtora in nature, contain verifiable documents, including scans of primary source documents and correspondence with figures mentioned in the article. These are valid sources, even if the website they are housed at are pro-Valtora websites. It's not the website that makes the source unreliable, but the quality of the source material itself.
So let's do this: let's deal with one issue at a time. We can go through them sequentially. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say your capitalisation of "Work", even in this discussion, appears to give away your POV.
  • The previous historical account was factually incorrect, or missing important information, for example that the Work was removed from the Index of Prohibited Books in 1962. This wasn't even mentioned, which suggests extreme POV-pushing by the other side. I've simply stated additional facts with primary sources to back it up: if you have reliable sources stating this information, feel free to add it to the current version (i.e. not the one with your POV-pushing). Otherwise, do not.
  • If it's factual (someone actually said it even if it is POV), and there is a source to back it up, and it's pertinent in context, then fine it deserves mention: nope, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: something must be reliably sourced (by reliable sources!) to be on Wikipedia, not true or factual.
  • I've simply stated additional facts with primary sources to back it up: you did not even use primary sources, you used blogs and militant websites. The reliability of a scan of a primary document is only a high as the reliability of the website that hosts it. It is the
    WP:TRUTH
    . Something being written somewhere publicly does not mean this something is reliable information.
  • We want people to see both sides, not just one side:
    WP:FALSEBALANCE
    . Adding information from apologetic blogs "to be fair and balanced" is not how Wikipedia works.
  • How are those websites reliable exactly? In your whole message, you did not explain why a reading club, lay militant associations, random blogs, a store, and whatnot, were reliable sources when it comes to talking about history.
  • All those sources are terrible and it is evident by simply opening them, so there is no reason to go through them sequentially.
Veverve (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again.
WP:BURDEN. You have been warned 4 times. Next is request for admin intervention. Veverve (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I must say your capitalisation of "Work", even in this discussion, appears to give away your POV.
Capitalization of 'work' is because it refers to a specific substantial work (The Poem of the Man-God) and not to something general. This is customary in many circles and is not a POV issue. Various clergy have also used the phrase 'the Work' to describe it in short-hand, so I used it as well. Another short-hand that is commonly used is The Poem. I don't have a problem with either.
Also, you make POV to be some dirty word. Everyone has a POV. I obviously support the work (I've read it and see it's value). You obviously have a contrary POV judging from your edits and anti-Valtorta stance. Nothing wrong with that. The issue at hand is backing things up with suitable sources.
if you have reliable sources stating this information, feel free to add it to the current version (i.e. not the one with your POV-pushing). Otherwise, do not.
I believe I have reliable sources for most material. But if you believe any given source is not reliable, then you ought to bring attention to that source specifically, and I can have a look at it, and we can discuss, instead of removing large portions of the article entirely. Your way of handling this is extremely disruptive. The proper way to handle this is to place a
WP:CITENEED [citation needed
] or similar tag beside the sentence or paragraph, and give the editor a chance to do so or discuss. That would go a long way to showing your good-faith.
nope, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: something must be reliably sourced (by reliable sources!) to be on Wikipedia, not true or factual.
You are misunderstanding what I wrote. What I'm saying is, if it's factual, for example, so-and-so said xyz and there is a reference that so-and-so actually did say that, and a reference is provided, then great. Even if what the source said is +/- POV. This happens all the time, especially in this type of article. There are quotes in this article from people that obviously have a negative-POV regarding Valtorta, disparaging her or her work, and yet, I've not removed them if there is a source for the quote, even though it is clearly negative-POV. I'm not referring to my POV (seeking to keep the language of the article itself neutral), but to the POV of people used as sources.
you did not even use primary sources, you used blogs and militant websites. The reliability of a scan of a primary document is only a high as the reliability of the website that hosts it. It is the WP:REPUTABLEsource which makes something reliable, not WP:TRUTH. Something being written somewhere publicly does not mean this something is reliable information.
Included in many of the sources you removed were links to scans of primary texts, including verifiable letters between Cardinals and other clergy of the Church with signatures and seals on them. Some of those primary sources happened to be hosted at websites that are admittedly pro-Valtorta in nature, but that shouldn't matter, since we are not concerned with the website itself, but the actual primary source material it contains. If you prefer, we can use another website with reference to the same material. That's fine. But the right way to do that is to mark passages with a citation tag, instead of removing everything and gutting the article.
WP:FALSEBALANCE. Adding information from apologetic blogs "to be fair and balanced" is not how Wikipedia works.
Again, you are misconstruing my words. By seeing both sides, I'm referring to the fact that there are two broad factions: those members of the Church who support the Work, and those that don't. Seeing both sides entails hearing what prominent members of both factions have to say about the Work, and then citing them. That makes for a NPOV article.
How are those websites reliable exactly? In your whole message, you did not explain why a reading club, lay militant associations, random blogs, a store, and whatnot, were reliable sources when it comes to talking about history.
Again, it's not a question of websites being "reliable" when referencing primary source documents, but the actual source documents themselves. Someone may consider a particular website as "unreliable" because it is a popular forum for pro-Valtorta material, or vice-versa if the opposite is true. That doesn't make the website unreliable per se. It's the actual primary sources referenced which determine reliability. For example, a scan of a letter with Fr. Berti's signature or seal that happens to reside on a popular pro-Valtorta website's server is reliable primary source material. Think about it. What websites are going to host pro-Valtorta primary source documents? Obviously not anti-Valtorta websites. The converse is also true.
All those sources are terrible and it is evident by simply opening them, so there is no reason to go through them sequentially.
According to you because you have a clear anti-Valtorta POV. The bottom line is that the way you are handling this is not consistent with
WP:CITENEED. The proper way to make your concerns heard is by providing a [citation needed] or similar label and give the editing process a chance instead of gutting large portions of the article because you consider the citations unreliable. Arkenstrone (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Capitalization of 'work' is because it refers to a specific substantial work (The Poem of the Man-God) and not to something general: I have never heard of such a rule or practice in my entire life.
  • Also, you make POV to be some dirty word. Everyone has a POV: on Wikipedia, POV is a behaviour worthy of sanctions, see
    WP:POV
    .
  • you ought to bring attention to that source specifically, and I can have a look at it: I still have not heard convincing explanations as to why all those militant blogs and random websites should be accepted as reliable sources, despite asking. Instead, you restated your point that anything hosted on a website and marked as "official document of XX" is to be believed to be as such, as if those documents could not be faked.
  • By seeing both sides, I'm referring to the fact that there are two broad factions: those members of the Church who support the Work, and those that don't. Seeing both sides entails hearing what prominent members of both factions have to say about the Work, and then citing them. That makes for a NPOV article: so a false balance based on you own vision of which groups are to be pleased, not
    WP:NPOV
    . You seem very focused on "pro-Vlatorta" and "anti-Valtorta", which is not how things are on Wikipedia.
  • Some of those primary sources happened to be hosted at websites that are admittedly pro-Valtorta in nature, but that shouldn't matter, since we are not concerned with the website itself, but the actual primary source material it contains, It's the actual primary sources referenced which determine reliability: please re-read my answer, I have already answered this. I can also host alleged "official" documents on my blog that state I have been elected President of Panama or whatnot.
  • According to you because you have a clear anti-Valtorta POV: nope, see
    WP:PA
    . And if I do not remove the information that goes along with the source, I may leave a verbatim quote or close paraphrasing, which would be a copyright infringement.
Veverve (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of such a rule or practice in my entire life.
Well, consider then that you just learned something new.
on Wikipedia, POV is a behaviour worthy of sanctions, see WP:POV.
You are missing the point. Everyone has a point of view with inherent cultural biases. Recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV in articles.
so a false balance based on you own vision of which groups are to be pleased, not WP:NPOV. You seem very focused on "pro-Vlatorta" and "anti-Valtorta", which is not how things are on Wikipedia.
Not a false balance. The facts are there are two broad groups of experts: those who support Valtorta's work, and those who don't. So we simply present both sides including their best arguments, (NPOV) and let the reader decide. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept your made up rule of capitalising "work".
You do not understand what
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
.
there are two broad groups of experts: those who support Valtorta's work, and those who don't. So we simply present both sides including their best arguments, (NPOV) and let the reader decide: this is exactly what a false balance is. Wikipedia does not let the reader decide. Did you read
WP:FALSEBALANCE? Veverve (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not accept your made up rule of capitalising "work".
Fine, use The Poem instead.
You do not understand what WP:POVPUSHING is...
You are doing exactly what you are accusing me and others of. And I've had enough. If you can't see passed your own POV-pushing, then that's your problem not mine. I recognize that I have a point of view, which I try to keep it out of the article to the best of my ability, focusing on the facts. I will not respond further to your hypocritical attacks. If you want to discuss content, great. But if you insist on endless WP:Wikilawyering then I'm not interested. Find another topic/forum/editor.
Yes, I have read
WP:FALSEBALANCE
and it appears you don't understand what it says. What I'm speaking about has nothing to do with false balance as it represents two prominent and significant views by experts and high-ranking members of the church. I quote:
"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
Enough of this nonsense and monumental waste of everyone's time. Arkenstrone (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the records: I found out that the use of "Work" with capital "W" to refer to Valtorta's book is an use by pro-Valtorta people (example), in order to imitate the fact Valtorta who called The Poem "the Work" with the same capitalisation. It is also the same in other languages. Veverve (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect content

This article has plenty of incorrect content. To begin with the statement by Joachim Bouflet that all that is known about Valtorta is from her autobiograph is obviously, and flatly, incorrect. The autobiography ends in 1943 before she started writing her book. Do we know nothing after that? Of course we do. The two books Una vita con Maria Valtorta. Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti (1987) and Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta (1998) by Albo Centoni are based on taped interviews with people who knew her, the neighbors, friends etc. The 2019 book Il cielo in una stanza. Vita di Maria Valtorta by Don Ernesto Zucchini has a complete review of her life. One has to question the validity of Joachim Bouflet as a source given his obvious lack of knowledge of the topic and sources that are available. If he had read the autobio he would have known when it ends. Unless there are good objections, I wll correct this in a day or two. Then go from there. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object: Bouflet is a reliable source published by a very reliable publisher. He is a historian and a specialist of mystical phenomenon; he also worked for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. I think you did not understand Bouflet's argument: most of what everyone knows on 46 out of the 61 years of her life can only be found in this autobiography. Biographers only have this autobiography.
I suspect why Bouflet – if he knew about them – did not take those into account:
  • Una vita con Maria Valtorta. Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti by Albo Centoni and Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta: published in 1987 and 1998 (25 and 34 years after Valtorta's death!) by the militant Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, not a RS. Due to the age, the testimonies are very likely unreliable.
  • Il cielo in una stanza. Vita di Maria Valtorta by Don Ernesto Zucchini: published by Fede & Cultura, not a RS, and the author is POV as the president of the Fondazione Maria Valtorta de Viareggio. If it is a review, it does not add something new.
You seem to have a very strong POV on the matter.
Veverve (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article does have plenty of incorrect content. The previous version (which was revision deleted) attempted to correct this by providing more factual historical information. For example, that only the first edition of The Poem was placed on The Index of Forbidden Books in 1959. Then after some back and forth by Fr. Berti and others, addressing the main concerns of the Holy Office, working with its Vice-Commissioner, Fr. Giraudo The Poem was removed from The Index in 1962. stated, "We have no objection to your publishing this 2nd Edition," concluding with: "We will see how the Work [the Poem] is welcomed." But no mention is made of that in this article, leading people to believe it is still banned, which it is not. I will add this information back into the article, with sources as soon as I get a chance. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Poem was removed from The Index in 1962: nope, it never was removed. Again, this shows your POV. The Index was abolished, but the work was never removed from it, as notes the Conference of Bishops of France quoting an official CDF letter. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some confusion and misunderstanding on both sides (that includes me).
According to Bishop Roman Danylak, the first Italian edition of The Poem was placed on The Index because it did not carry a nihil obstat and imprimatur. But several Bishops subsequently gave their nihil obstat and imprimatur to the writings in later years.
However, even prior to that, the second edition of The Poem, published in 1961, received verbal approval for publication from Fr. Giraudo Vice-Commissioner of the Holy Office:
Ecclesiastical Censure Withdrawn
In December of 1961, when the first volumes of the 10-volume edition had already gone out, Father Berti was summoned anew by the Holy Office, where he found an atmosphere of dialogue which, among other things, allowed him to relate the words of Pius XII of 1948, and to exhibit the favorable certifications of some authorities. Among these there were three consultors to the Holy Office itself : Father Augustine Bea, S.J. (who became a Cardinal), Msgr. Lattanzi, and Father Roschini. He was required by a report and some documentation to return to the Holy Office four more times in January of 1962, and was always able to deal with the Vice-Commissioner, Father Giraudo, a Dominican, and finally obtained a sentence which seemed a cautious approval: "We will see how the Work [The Poem] will be welcomed." [1]
So while you appear to be correct that the first edition of The Poem was not formally removed from The Index before The Index was abolished in 1965, the prohibition does not apply to later editions of The Poem. This seems to be where the confusion lies.
Also of note, quoting Bishop Roman Danylak:
The decree that abrogated the index of forbidden books, distinguishes between those books that were placed on the index because of their objectionable moral, theological and anti-ecclesial character, and other literature, as writings on private revelations or purported visions that were published without prior approval of ecclesiastical authorities. [2]
The Poem falls into the latter category.
Again quoting Bishop Danylak:
It is true that the first edition of the Poem of the Man God was placed on the index of the Roman Catholic Church. This index was scrapped by the authority of Pope Paul VI in 1965. As the authoritative explanation of the accompanying document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith explains, the old index may retain the moral, but not canonical, authority as a guide to Catholic readers. The documents of 1965/6 acknowledge that not every work that had been placed on the index was necessarily against morals and faith. [3]
Imprimature of Bishop Roman Danylak [4]
Imprimature of Archbishop Soosa Pakiam [5] Arkenstrone (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BLOG
making claims and hosting alleged scans and claiming to host writings of a deceased bishop and an university professor.
The whole "the Church approved of the work verbally believe me, but they administratively and officialy condemned it later" has no basis, no reliable source mentions it as an established fact.
The decree putting the work on the Index does not mention why it was put on the Index. But the article in the Osservatore Romano supports the idea that it was for dotrinal reasons.
You really think the Index only concerned hyper-specific editions of the same work? That simply changing publisher made the whole things moot? Veverve (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let's purse this in the spirit of honest inquiry and debate. Note, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, regarding the first edition of The Poem being placed on the Index. I just wish to illustrate a point regarding
WP:RS
.
You provided a link to a document hosted on the website of a Diocese in France: Areche, Diocese de Viviers. The diocese is led by Bishop Jean-Louis Balsa, Bishop of Viviers, according to the information on the website.
Now, why is information contained on this website RS, and information contained on the website of Bishop Roman Danylak [6], not RS? What if the article referenced on Bishop Danylak's website was previously published?
A separate point: are official documents hosted on a website dedicated to hosting historical documents of this type RS? And what if those official documents are scans of originals, complete with signatures and seals?
At some point, if the author is reliable (an expert, a Bishop in this case, or a website that has received the official Imprimatur of a high-ranking Church official), or the material is hosted on a website that is administered by such an individual (e.g. a Bishop and his supporting clergy), it stands to reason that we can presume the material to be reliable, or at least reliable enough, unless there is a compelling reason to presume the contrary.
If there is any doubt, there can always be an examination of that material in order to confirm whether the works hosted are indeed authentic. In the above scenarios, if you have a legitimate concern that material could be a forgery, then the onus is on you to prove it. In our liberal western democracies, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, we always presume innocence until guilt is established.
@Arkenstrone: this shows you have no idea what a reliable source is (despite receiving a formal warning at your talk page!). I give you an official Catholic statement, which says that the Poem as a whole is indeed considered to have been on the Index according to the CDF prefect.
I don't agree that bardstown.com/~brchrys is a random militant blog. Here's why. The website is administered by a Catholic Monk by the name of Bro. Chrysostom. That website was specifically praised and recommended by Bishop Roman Danylak, and given his official Imprimatur for the high quality and well-referenced articles that it hosts:[7]
"To introduce those who may not have heard of Maria Valtorta I include a brief historical and biographical introduction to Maria, excerpted from an introduction by Bro. Chrysostom, Trappist monk: Maria Valtorta and her epic narrative The Poem of the Man – God. I recommend the website of Bro. Chrysostom and the numerous articles that he has included for everyone, as an introduction to her writings and to the many problematic issues associated with the name, work and mission of Valtorta."
And[8]
"[...] The above is a somewhat lengthy introduction to my original intent: to present a letter of commendation, a Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur and a testimonial to this website of a Catholic monk on the writings of Maria Valtorta…"
You really think the Index only concerned hyper-specific editions of the same work? That simply changing publisher made the whole things moot?
Not changing publisher but because those involved (first-hand witnesses) explained the reason: anonymous authorship, and ambiguous passages not having theological annotations. After those issues were addressed in the second edition, the Holy Office no longer sanctioned the Work. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, so let me understand your logic here. The book by Maria Valtorta is reliable, because she was a truth teller, but the book by her assistant Mata Diciotti is not reliable? So if there is no reliable source that Valtorta was bedridden after 1943, given that you and Bouflet think there are none, how do we know she was bedridden after 1943? What is your source for any of her life? How do you know when she died? How do you know what she did? How do you know anything after 1943? As for age of the book, all the people who knew Valtorta have died now, so of course the books are from when they lived.

Your logic leaves a tremendous amount to be desired. As for what is a reliable source your opinion is as good as mine, given that we are both entitled to our opinions. As for your repeated use of the term POV, that is a two way street, of course. FYI: Fede and Cultura is a well established and respected publisher with many many books, if you know anything about Italy. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book by Maria Valtorta is reliable, because she was a truth teller: I never claimed that. To assess the reliability of a source, see
    WP:REPUTABLE
    .
  • your repeated use of the term POV, that is a two way street, of course: I am the one using a book written by a reliable historian and published by a very reputable publisher, this is not
    WP:POV
    as far as I can tell.
Veverve (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, actually I think Éditions du Cerf is a good publisher, as is Fede e Cultura. They are highly respected in Italy and some of the best known authors publish with them. I just can not understand why Bouflet should be the only reliable source on the subject. More importantly, you have not answered my "key question" regarding his statement about the auto biography, namely if all that is known about Valtorta is from her autobiography (published by Valtorta's own editors) then how do we know anything about her after 1942, given that she stopped writing it before 1943? How do we know she did not recover, and get married? How do we know anything? I am going to be internet free until Sunday. So please think about that and respond clearly, then we will talk on Sunday. Have a good weekend. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Éditions du Cerf is a good publisher, as is Fede e Cultura: Fede e Cultura is a random militant TradCath publisher, whereas Éditions du Cerf is a very well-known and reliable publisher. Again, I found nothing that could give Fede e Cultura any shred of reputability.
  • I just can not understand why Bouflet should be the only reliable source on the subject: by all means, add reliable sources (not apologetic books published by militant associations or random unreliable publishers) if you want.
  • if all that is known about Valtorta is from her autobiography (published by Valtorta's own editors) then how do we know anything about her after 1942, given that she stopped writing it before 1943?: he said "most" of her life, not "all". And again, this is not giving any credit to the autobiography itself.
Veverve (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday and Veverve I don't comprehend the purpose of this first sentence in the section that references Bouflet in the Life section (formerly Bibliography). That section is about Valtorta's life. Is he trying to say that Valtorta's autobiography is somehow invalid because she wrote it? That's what autobiographies are: personal accounts of one's life. This sentence seems out of place as it is irrelevant. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is stating what is stated, nothing else. If most of someone's life is only known through their autobiography, then this should be mentioned. Veverve (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Index and Imprimatur

I think we need to end the discussion on the Index and imprimatur. I have researched these and here are the facts:

1. The book was on the Index, and was never removed from it. This is 100% sure because the placement was in the Osservatore. Removing things from the Index woud require a very long, multi-year dance along the corridors of the Vatican. This never happened. We can be certain of that, not because we do not know of it, but because we do know. Our lack of knowledge of an event is no guarantee that it did not happen. But in this case, Fr Berti himself said so. He wrote that not long after after the death of Pope John XXIII he tried to get the book removed from the Index. but was told not to worry about the Index, and was sent away. He wrote that little did he know at the time that they had told him that because the Index was going to die soon anyway and no discussion was necessary. The Index then just evaporated away not long after that and that was it. So the Three Musketeers, Valtorta's book and all others on the Index became free of the Index restrictions. The section numbers of the Code of Canon Law used to place Valtorta's book (but not her because her 1st printing had no author name!) are mentioned in the Osservatore, inconsistently. They messed it up, but never bothered to correct it. So it was most probably because of publication without an imprimatur, but they are masters of typo it seems.

2. The Italian version never received an imprimatur. Does not have one on the front section. The basic rule for imprimaturs is the " what you see is what you get" approach. Look at the first 3 pages. If it has an imprimatur it will be shown there, along with the name of the person granting it. Very simple. More importantly, Emilio Pisani, the publisher directly stated that the book never received one either from Pius XII or others. He is honest in his position. Any other translation he published would hence not have one. Some obscure translation may have received some imprimatur but that will not carry over to any other language. Each imprimatur is for one book in one language.

Arkenstrone, I think we need to have a separate discussion to clarify "reliable sources". But please remember that we can NOT ever, ever trust what that Australian Valtorta website or Bardstown say. They may be honest, or not. We do not know. So we can not use those letters or statements in Wikipedia as reliable sources. Think of it this way, if you want, by the end of today you can produce a soft copy of a letter from Winston Churchil, on suitable letterhead, that recommends you as the next prime minister of England, and have it posted on a blog somewhere. It would take 2 hours to do it. You can never know what is true or not on blogs. But you can use book names they mention to buy the books on Amazon. That is all they are good for. But do not trust the contents.

So let us stop wasting time on the Index and Imprimatur. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, Emilio Pisani, the publisher directly stated that the book never received one either from Pius XII or others.
Was he talking about an "official" written Imprimatur, or a verbal unofficial Imprimatur? How does that reconcile with the account of Fr. Berti, which related the words of Pope Pius XII to "publish the Work as it is"?
But please remember that we can NOT ever, ever trust what that Australian Valtorta website or Bardstown say.
I think Bardstown is a special case as I mentioned above in my response to Veverve. Specifically, it is administered by a Roman Catholic monk, hosts high-quality and well-referenced content, and received the Imprimatur of Bishop Roman Danyluk.[9] Arkenstrone (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkenstrone, I am sorry but you have not read my advice about WP:RS carefully enough. The fact that bardstown is managed by a monk is so much more reason for NOT being WP:RS. There is no "special case against policy". Policy always wins. That is all. I am sorry but I will not discuss this further. I have said enough times that blogs are NOT WP:RS. Please do not push your luck. You are on your way to getting blocked if you continue this way. For the last time: Policy always wins. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy for self-published works, such as blogs, personal websites, newsletters, etc.
WP:USINGSPS
"Self-published doesn't mean bad
Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.
Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for third-party claims about living people). "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources. For example:
If you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
A self-published source by an expert may become an authoritative reference for a claim, as with the best-selling self-published book The Joy of Cooking as a source for claims about cooking techniques.
A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source.
Conversely, properly published sources are not always "good" or "reliable" or "usable", either. Being properly published does not guarantee that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, or subject to editorial control. Properly published sources can be unreliable, biased, and self-serving."
Arkenstrone (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in this case the self-published work is not reliable. Veverve (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's Bishop Danylak's personal website, hosting his articles and views. As far as that content is an accurate description of his views and opinions is concerned, it is reliable. You are confusing "reliable" with "official". They are not the same. Quote from
WP:USINGSPS
:
"Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable"."
Arkenstrone (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be used to say "Danylak said X", just like any personnal blog; a blog is usually reliable to state matter-of-factly what the blog's author says, the information being the person's opinion and not the fact on the world. Some blogs are maintained by experts and thus those experts' blogs can be used as sources to state as fact (in wikivoices) some information about the world.
But why should we give Danylak's opinion? He is neither a historian, nor someone who has any form of reputability as a writer or academic on this topic. The form of publication (a blog post) does not give his statement any form or reliability. Thus, his opinion would be
WP:NOTABLE. We do not go an collect opinions on random blogs of random prelates on such and such topics. Veverve (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Because Danylak's view and opinion matters. He was not just some random guy with an opinion. He was appointed Apostolic administrator of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto and Titular Bishop of Nyssa by Pope John Paul II. He also served as a canon of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. His views and opinions on religious matters are valuable and relevant. Just as you would value the views and opinions of any high-ranking expert in their field.
Lol. Danylak's opinion is most certainly not
WP:NOTABLE. It has to do with notability of topics, and whether they warrant an article. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
All I can tell you, at this point, is to familiarise yourself more with Wikipedia's policies.
You have no idea what a reliable source is and are unwilling to learn it (at least from me); please do the
WP:Adventure
before doing anything on WP. All that I could say on why you were wrong, I have already said it extensively.
I am not wasting my time anymore answering you, and I still oppose adding Danylak's comments or any bishop or cardinal that is not qualified on the matter or reliably published (re-read my comments if you wonder why). Veverve (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just cited WP policy. So how is it that I have no idea what RS is when I'm quoting WP policy on RS in regards to self-published sources?
WP:USINGSPS
• Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable".
• A self-published source by an expert may become an authoritative reference for a claim
• A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source
1. Bishop Danylak's website is self-published.
2. Bishop Danylak is an expert in his field.
3. Some of the material on his website is published, other material is unpublished.
Ergo, material from Bishop Danylak's website can be used as an acceptable source for his own expert views and opinions on religious matters.
WP policy directly supports what I'm saying. It seems to me that you are refusing to accept WP policy that goes against your POV. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Danylak should be included, but I do not agree with the logic of either of you guys.

Arkenstone, I do not think the authorship of the blog is certain. If Danylak had said the same things in a newspaper interview, or written a book he should have certainly been included. But he never wrote a book. So he is not in. And that is that.
Veverve, I agree with you that Danylak is out. But not based on your reason. I think you need to cut back on "labeling" whoever disagrees with you as a nobody or unimportant, or militant, etc. That strategy is just too obvious and does not work. Danylak was a canon of Santa Maria Maggiore. That is a very high position in the Church of Rome, and very very few people get to that position. If you knew the Church of Rome, you would know that you do not get there by being a nobody. The importance of his religious and theological views is at least 10 times more than a "fast food preacher" like Mitch Pacwa who reaches the mass market. Pacwa is in the article. The difference between their position in the Church is the difference between food at a 2 star Michelin restaurant and Jack in the Box. The problem is that we do not know who cooked that food, Danylak or a busboy. So aylak can not be included.

That is all I I have to say. Let us end this issue. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That strategy is just too obvious and does not work: did you just state I was here acting dishonestly? I remind you to AGF.
  • sacredheartofjesus.ca appears to be indeed Danylak's blog.
  • No, being in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, whether you are a bishop or a cardinal, does not give you any scientific credibility. It does not make you a historian either. Being a
    canon
    in a church, however prestigious it is, does not make you an academic authority.
  • The importance of his religious and theological views is at least 10 times more than a "fast food preacher" like Mitch Pacwa who reaches the mass market: says who? What kind of biased hierarchy are you trying to push for?
Again, WP does not have the goal to go to random (yes, random, Danylak is not reliable in the field of history) blogs of bishops or priest, whatever liturgical role they have been given, to give any opinion they have on such and such issue.
  • Mitch Pacwa Pacwa is not quoted in this article. If you are talking about The Poem of the Man-God, Pacwa's article was published in New Covenant: this is at least not a self-publication, and it is published by Our Sunday Visitor which is an ok publisher.
Veverve (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, being in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, whether you are a bishop or a cardinal, does not give you any scientific credibility. It does not make you a historian either. Being a canon in a church, however prestigious it is, does not make you an academic authority.
Being a high-ranking Cardinal or Bishop has nothing to do with having scientific credibility, or being a historian, or being an academic authority. It has to do with having credibility on religious matters. You are conflating Danylak's expertise on religious matters, with his non-expertise in other fields. His lack of expertise in those other fields is irrelevant, since that's not why he's being referenced. He's being referenced for his expertise regarding religious matters.
The importance of his religious and theological views is at least 10 times more than a "fast food preacher" like Mitch Pacwa who reaches the mass market: and says who? What kind of biased hierarchy are you trying to push for?
Yesterday is correct on this point. And what he's saying is readily apparent. That is why there is a Church hierarchy. High-ranking ecclesiastical dignitaries have greater authority than lower ranking ones. Arkenstrone (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, agree with you on Danylak vs. Pacwa. The views and opinions of Danylak, being of much higher rank, carry far more weight. Common sense really. Same for any other field. But as Veverve pointed out below, sacredheartofjesus.ca is indeed Danylak's website. And at least one article appearing on his website titled "In Defense of the Poem" was published in "A Call to Peace," August/September 1992, Vol. 3, No. 4. (NB: As you can see, new information is coming to light by continuing this discussion, which is why we shouldn't end this issue prematurely. Let's continue until it comes to its natural conclusion). Arkenstrone (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not operate via ecclesiactical ranking. A cardinal's opinion on a blog is worth less than a layman or a non-Catholic in a fields in which said a layman or non-Catholic is reliably published or deemed an expert. No, you cannot cherry-pick bishops' opinions, nor can you give a bishop's opinion as a fact, nor can you add attributed opinions however you want on WP.
I found nothing on this alleged "A Call to Peace" magazine (neither a mention, nor a scan, nor a publisher, nothing); so in any case this does not support the reliability at all. Veverve (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A cardinal's opinion on a blog is worth less than a layman or a non-Catholic in a fields in which said a layman or non-Catholic is reliably published or deemed an expert.
A cardinal's opinion is "expert" testimony if it pertains to his field of expertise - religious or ecclesiastical matters. Point is, if you can cherry-pick Fr. Pacwa's -ve opinions, then why can't you cherry-pic Bishop Danylak's +ve opinions with greater justification? Not as fact, but as their opinions on religious matters of which they are expert in? Arkenstrone (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still sanctioned or not

You guys are typig so much it is hard to see what you all typed everyday. Let me make a suggestion, let us do something unusual: think. If the Poem was still under sanction there would be no Catholic priest who would preach about it. Those Catholic priests would be defrocked pretty quickly. So if priests support it, make videos about it there is no formal sanction. Everyone in the world who has a brain knows that. No need to debate it. Many of those priests get angry looks from their Bishops, but that is all they get. End of discussion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I am tired of this weeks-long discussion, but it is not like I can get you two to see my point most of the time.
  • I never stated there were restrictions de facto still in place. The book was never removed from the Index and I and Arkenstrom both agree on this.
Veverve (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday & Veverve, but this the problem with the article as it stands. It's disingenuous and misleading. It says The Poem was placed on the Index and that's it. That's only a partial-truth which misleads readers into believing something that is not true. A falsehood by omission of important details is still a falsehood.
The article doesn't provide the full set of facts that:
1) Pius XII did give his famous verbal approval, "Publish this work as it is",
2) Inclusion on the Index was for the first edition only and done by two commissioners of the Holy Office,
3) Sanctions were no longer in place for the second edition after all concerns of the Holy Office were addressed in many face-to-face meetings by Fr. Berti and others,
4) The Index was abolished in 1965/6, and
5) The reason The Poem was originally placed on the Index had nothing to do with objectionable moral theological and anti-ecclesial character, but because of lack of formal written prior approval of ecclesiastical authorities,
6) Many contend that even the first edition of The Poem was placed on the Index in error, overturning the informal verbal Imprimatur of Pius XII, and thus the hierarchy of the Church.
All those details are missing. And those are important historical facts that provide clarity and a more truthful and accurate picture of what happened. Arkenstrone (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source supports claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. You are trying to POV-push. Veverve (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I now notice that I have already written The whole "the Church approved of the work verbally believe me, but they administratively and officialy condemned it later" has no basis, no reliable source mentions it as an established fact. So, I will stop responding to you Arkenstrone. I am too tired to talk to a wall the way I have done for weeks. I still oppose your proposals, mind you. Veverve (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? How do you know? Let's see if we can provide reliable sources for each of 1-3, and 5-6 according to
WP:USINGSPS. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposal to end discussion on Danylak and Index

I think the situation in the discussion clear and it is time to stop:

Myself and Veverve agree on the exlusion of Danylak. We have different reasons for that, but the outcome is that we support exclusion.
Myself and Veverve almost agree on that there is no need to debate the details of the Index. Again, we have very different reasons, but the outcome is that we just need to say: "It was on the Index, the Index died, there are no restrictions on reading the book by Catholics, just as there are none for The Three Musketeers which was also on the Index until the abolition of the Index." That is all.

You two guys can discuss until your hair turns gray, but I am going to stop. Good luck. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with what you said about the Index. It's actually accurate and less confusing. All the points I mentioned above are required to be mentioned IF you are going to talk about the index in any detail in order to convey an accurate picture of what happened. We can bypass all that by just doing what you said. Nice, simple, and accurate. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's newspaper

Arkenstrone and Veverve, when I saw you two guys debating the "position of the Church" towards Maria Valtorta, I recalled something I read about the definition of a Wikipedian as someone who does not accept that the building they are standing in is on fire until they read about it in tomorrow's newspaper. My suggestion in this note is that you guys should calm down, and not get upset about what the article says now, and accept what it will say later. That way you guys will not run off and waste your time on ANI fighting each other. All of that will not affect the fate of the article.

One item you probably do not know about (and no one can add to Wikipedia at the moment) is that the process of beatification of Maria Valtorta has already started, but the article can not be edited to reflect that until a newspaper says it. That will happen, but has not happened yet. The fact that the process has started is 100% certain, as evidencd by this video . About 50 minutes into the video you will see two men sitting next to each other. Their names are written on the screen behind them. The younger one is Carlo Fusco (avocato rotale) the older one is Msg Francesco Maria Tasciotti. They are discussing "the progress" of the beatification process of Valtorta which had started about a year before, I think just before the pandemic hit Italy pretty hard. It was approved by the previous Bishop of Lucca, just before his retirement.

Carlo Fusco is the official postulant. Ms Tasciotti is the examiner in charge. So technically Valtorta can be called "Servant of God" but the article can not be edited to say that until some newspaper states that. I think Video evidence is probably not an acceptable as a

WP:RS
source, but I am not certain. But there is no rush to edit the article to that effect- As newspapers comeout later, that will happen. That is 100% certain. So please calm down and accept the inevitable, and please do not fight each other.

An important item to mention is that Tasciotti stated tat Valtorta's book will not play a part in the beatification process, and it will be mostly decided on her piousness. So the Index is beside the point. There is no point for you guys to fight about that. It matters not. Eventually, may be 2-3 years, the table in this article will say Servant of God. Once the beatification proces started, it is hardly ever reversed, but it can take very long. In the video Tasciotti is positive, but said that they need time, partly because him and Fusco are working on Luigi Sturzo's case now and will focus on Valtorta after that. You may recall Fusco as the lawyer who defended the Pope's butler a few years ago. But that is beside the point.

So there is no point in fighting about the Index because it is already irrelevant. But the article can be somewhat improved because it is too brief. I think some of the material Vevere deleted was very low quality and deserved to be deleted. But I think a couple of babies were thrown out with the bathwater there. And can be restored with proper discussion. I think Arkenstrone should accept that there is no point in exhuming the body of poor Danylak again and again to use him in the article. And I think Vevere should accept that he deleted plenty and some of it will eventually go back. He should also accept that the term Servant if God will appear in the article, but certainly not now. Accepting the inevitable may help calm him down. So please let us calm down and progreess methodically. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wasn't aware of the beatification process of Valtorta. Thanks for sharing.
So there is no point in fighting about the Index because it is already irrelevant.
Yes, but the issue is many use it to say something false and give readers the wrong impression, that The Poem is on the Index and remains on the Index, and that the Index still has authority, and so The Poem still remains a work sanctioned by the Church. So the abolishment of the Index in 1965/6 means nothing? Makes no sense.
I think Arkenstrone should accept that there is no point in exhuming the body of poor Danylak again and again to use him in the article.
This is going to be difficult for me to accept. I'm attached to Bishop Roman Danylak. Why shouldn't we use him? Not that it's a justification, but his work was already being referenced by other editors before I began editing the article. I think his is a valuable contribution. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arkenstrone, the best way to lose a debate is to be emotional about it. If you are emotional about the topic your logic fails. People may be misled about many things, but in time facts emerge. Your emotions do not affect Wiki policy. And policy always wins. So accept Wiki policy. And let Danylak rest in peace. Look forward, not backwards. And do not start useless fights, please. You will waste your life that way. Look forward, not backwards. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not emotional or emotionally attached to any outcome in this process. I think I'm fairly cool about things. When I say "I'm attached to Bishop Roman Danylak" I meant that somewhat tongue-and-cheek. I've read his articles, and believe he is a good source for his own words and views. Don't agree with you on Danylak. Wiki policy does indeed support using him as a source for his own words as I mentioned previously
WP:USINGSPS. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Have you guys read the Jan 1960 article?

In the middle of all that talk I forgot to ask a key question. Have you guys read the Jan 1960 article in the Osservatore yourselves? There is something I need toexplain, that is easy to do if you have read the article. If you have please say so. Else, I think if you email them, they will just email you a copy for free, at least they used to. Copies of the original Italian version are floating on the web, but I have not seen an English version. But it is good to have read that before discussing it. It would be a short discussion that way. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just read it: 1) the original 1960 decree of condemnation in Latin (and translated into English), and 2) the original 1960 explanatory letter in Italian, with English translation/analysis. Arkenstrone (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but please also take a look at the images of the "original page" that are on the internet, because translations are often inexact. In any case please note that the official placement (in Italian, top left) only mentions the book name as "Il Poema di Gesu" late published as "Il Poema del'Uomo Dio" and does not refer to an author for the book. The Osservatore article states that the version of the book at the time (i.e. 1960) was by an "autore anonomimo" i.e. anonymous author. Later the article writer says that in the 4th volume there is a hint that the author may be a woman called Maria. There is no mention of the name Valtorta anywhere, because those editions had no author name, as the article stated. And the first edition was published as "Il Poema di Gesu" i.e. the Poem of Jesus. They ran into copyrigh problems on that title so changed it, but that is another issue. So the statement "she was placed on the Index" is incorrect. An anonymous book attributed to her in future editions was on the Index. And obviously none of her other writings were on the Index, because the Index had died before they were pubished. TImages of the first edition with the Title "Il Poema di Gesu" are on the web, and old copies of that edition are for sale on EBAY. So that is certain. So we can say that the first edition was under the title "Il Poema di Gesu" and had no author name either in the old bookstores, or when placed on the Index. The codes of Canon Law in the 1960 article are correct and correspond to publication without imprimatur, but those in the 1961 mention are mistyped and relate to completely different things, confusing the issue.
So it is best to refer to the Index in the book article, with a minimal reference in this one because Valtorta was never on the Index, an anonymous book was. We all know it was hers (as did the Vatican) but they are stickler for details, although not good at typing. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it wasn't Valtorta that was placed on the Index, but rather the first 4-volume anonymous edition compromising two separate titles. The original Latin article mentions two separate titles, one for the first volume, and a different title for the remaining 3 volumes.
Google Translate of original Latin:
In the general consent of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the Cardinals in charge of matters of faith and morals, with the prior consent of the Consultors, condemned and ordered to be inserted in the List of Prohibited Books an anonymous work comprising four volumes, the first of which:
"Il Poema di Gesu" (Typography Editrice M. Pisan, Isola del Liri); but the rest
"Il Poema dell'Uomo-Dio" (Ibidem)
are written
So the first volume of the 4 was entitled: "Il Poema di Gesu", and the remaining 3 volumes of the 4 was entitled "Il Poema dell'Uomo-Dio". However, they were all anonymous. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkenstrone, these statementts are "generally correct" but please accept that Google Translate can give very approximate translations. The discussions of documents from antiquity have many "translation victims" who made statements without consulting the original texts, often because they do not speak the relevant languages. And Valtorta's texts in various languages have various errors. That is 100% certain. And remember that there were 2 translators for the English book (one did revisions) and a separate one for the Notebooks and it is often haphazard how they translated things. The French translation also has errors. I have not checked the Spanish, etc. But Valtorta's book is very long and the translators often forget what they did in their own earlier work! As we discuss furthr the list of these "translation victims" will grow. You will see that. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move most of Index discussion to Book article

In view of the above, a few things are clear:

1. Given that in 1960 the book had no author name, Valtorta was not formaly placed on the Index, unlike people such as David Hume.

2. Given that the Index died in 1966, none of Valtorta's other books went on the Index. In fact all her other books were graually published after 1970.

3. This article is about "a person" not a book, so items that do not directly relate to her belong in the book article, not the person article.

Currently there is unnecessary duplication of the same material in both articles, and mentioning the Index here, and discussing it there makes more sense. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article should only have a one-paragraph section discussing The Poem with mention of it being put on the Index. The Poem is her book (even if it was publishe anonymously at first), and her one reason for fame, so its publication and the fact it was put on the Index should be mentioned. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your proposal to move most of the Index discussion to the book article, your reasons make sense. No need to duplicate material, especially considering this article is about the person and not the book, with only brief mention of the book being necessary.
Maybe mention that the first edition, published anonymously, was placed on the Index. Then mention that the Index was abolished in 1965. Any additional details can appear in the book article.
Also, there were several books which were later published, including The Book of Azariah, The Notebooks (1943), The Notebooks (1944), The Notebooks (1945-1950), Autobiography, etc. Should also mention these other works. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly we have had our first 3 way agreement on anything. Time to reach for the bubbly... Give me a couple of days to think about how we can say things in a way that will minimize future debates with pass through IPs. Thank. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I reached for the bubbly too soon. I had a work in progress tag in place, and half way through before I coud finish Veverve jumped in and changed my half finished work. Can we do this without an edit war and with calm and discussion please? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on my talk page, this is not the right template if you want to work alone on a section. The one you added is the opposite: it encourages other users to edit. Veverve (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes. I do feel I need to have my attorney present when doing things, but anyway, I made a first cut without an edit war. I think you should clean up the material copied to the Poem book age. I will leave it to you to do. I will be a nice gentleman and not jump in until you say you have done it. Then we will discuss. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books by author, and about author

I was asked a question by Arkenstrone above about "most of her life is from her autobio". Before I answer, could somneone add a page number requested to that sentence, so I can look into Bouflet's book and see what he says. I know that tag exists, but do not know the exact syntax. Thanks. I do not know if Bouflet means to those who only speak French, those who speak several languages, or just Norwegian speakers. There are several books about Valtorta, and of course Bouflet's comment in his book has nothing to do with Wiki policy. So it is vague. But any reader with a brain who does a Google search knows that there is plenty out there. So nothing to get worked up about.

What the article needs (no rush, let us say six months) is to gradually add info about "people she knew" and how she interacted with them. Her autobio mentions "Marta Diciotti" who wrote a book about her and that name must be among the people she knew. And per

WP:ABOUTSELF
from the book that she wrote. All within Wiki policy. I do not have time for this, and I think soon ChatGPT will give users this info anyway, but adding it here is ok, if someone wants to do it.

But I must add that the amount of material added must be restricted to basic facts. We must accept that this is a controversial subject and there are hot headed idiots on both sides of the debate making contradictory claims The debates are not likely to end any time soon. I remember reading a NY Times article about the most stupid debate ever on Wikipedia about the use of the term "Beatles" vs "The Beatles" that went on for several years. Debates about this subject may set a new record if we open that type of door. What we just need to say is:

1. How did she get disabled? Someone hit her. Did she recover? No.

2. How did she live? An assistant helped her.

3. What was life like when she wrote? The US Airforce was bombing the life out of them.

4. When did she sign a contract? 1952.

5. When did she die? 1961.

The readers who are very interested will search the web anyway. So let us accept that this is a very controversal subject. Keep to basic facts and we will all live 7 years longer by avoiding intense debates. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a physical version, so I cannot add a page number. What Bouflet wrote is what I transcribed. Veverve (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Kindle version has page numbers. You must have a preprint. Anyway, I will try to look through in a few days. No big deal on that statement. As we gradually add her other books, the picture will emerge. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a preprint. E-book pages numbers are not the same as pages in the printed book. This is why in the chapter parameter I have added enough details for anyone to find the section.
On my e-book reader, this information is p. 40. Veverve (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge of most of her life and Bouflet

@Arkenstrone: please discuss your will to change the article, and stop edit-warring.

How is it part of a controversy to state that most of Valtorta's life is only known through her autobiography? It is never presented as such in the source.

How is it

WP:UNDUE to tell the reader this information? Veverve (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

First, you are the one that summarily reverted my edits, even while I was in the midst of making changes. Please refrain from that sort of knee-jerk reaction, and instead let things sit for a few days before you decide to react, thus giving editors a chance to finish their edits-in-progress. That's extremely disruptive behaviour. You did the same thing to @Yesterday just the other day.
Second, the changes were quite minor, adding a clarifying phrase here, changing a title there, and moving the sentence in question to the bottom of the section instead of front-and-center at the top. Even if Bouflet's observation was correct, it doesn't belong at the top of the section. That's giving undue importance
WP:UNDUE
to a viewpoint which is tangential to the purpose of the section. It belongs after the discussion of the life of Valtorta, if it belongs anywhere.
But I contend that Bouflet's observation is provably wrong, as pointed out by @Yesterday. Several biographies exist, and Bouflet's failure to know this, or even to mention those other biographies, puts into serious question his domain expertise. As such, I do not believe he is reliable or sufficiently knowledgable on this topic, and should not be included in either article. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkenstrone: you have reverted the content four times, thus violating 3RR:
So, please revert this last edit and stop trying to force this change.
But I contend that Bouflet's observation is provably wrong etc.: I have already answered this. Veverve (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused and mistaken. A simple look at the edit history shows that you have reverted my edits 3 times, and I have reverted your reversion 3 times. One more reversion on your part, and you will be in violation of
WP:3RR. I have placed a warning on your talk page. If you wish to discuss, we can discuss. Also, you have not answered these concerns satisfactorily. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Arkenstrone: this is not how it works. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". So you either undo your edit or I go to ANI. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The sentence in question has not yet been removed from the article, and has only been moved to the end of the Life section, since it is tangential information as per
WP:UNDUE and doesn't warrant such highly conspicuous placement at the start of the section. In any case, it has been tagged with a 'disputed' template and 'reliable source?' tag which we are now discussing. There is nothing to undo at this time. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Please read
WP:Calm
and remember that it takes two to Tango

Well, well, well. So much for my suggestion above that we should take it easy and not get worked up.

WP:Calm is just an essay but please read it twice, and please, please stop the reverts. I am not going to bother to count who reverted how many times, but it is all a waste over one little sentence. Let us discuss this calmly before any reverts. It is one little sentence and not a big deal. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

It's the initial knee-jerk revert which is dismissive and disrespectful that is the problem. Most reasonable editors will discuss another editors additions/edits in good-faith on the talk page, and perhaps tag those edits with appropriate templates if there are concerns. A knee-jerk revert is unacceptable, especially on a controversial topic. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what happened, let that be the past and let us move forward.

I think this little sentence is a manfestation of a biigger, unanswwwered question, namely the extent to which Bouflet is

WP:RS
on specific issues. I have been looking through his book. And found what he wrote on that. In this case that is what he wrote and Veverve's translation is correct. BUt the correctness of the translation does not support inclusion or exclusion, either way. Although this is a pathetic little sentence, there are larger underlying issues. I will list them, and please adress them one by one, and we will proceed from there. Please address all issue, and do not skip any

1. Is Boufleta reliable source on "all topics"? I think no one would consider his comments reliable on the

Bose Einstein condensate. I think if we were to ask him a question on that issue we would get a very strange look on his face. He is also as much an expert on botany as he is on condensed matter physics
and I am not sure if he has ever trimmed the rose bushes in his own garden. So just a blanket approval does not apply to him.

2. Is Boufleta reliable source on "some topics"? I think on the topic of "private revelations" and their relationships with the Catholic Church he is certainly an expert and a reliable source. In fact one of his books has a preface by René Laurentin who is undoubted expert and the book was published by SALVATOR, a respected French publisher. So he is reliable on that topic, as well as modern chirch history. His PhD was in modern history.

3. Is Bouflet reliable on archaeology? This can be debated, but I have said that I think that he will rue the ay he wondered off from modern history and touched upon archaeology. What he does not know is that archaeologists of the Levant have two separate uses for their shovels. One use is to dig, the other to hit other archaeologists (specially the naive newcomers) on the head. As you have seen on the other page he made a laughable error regarding vanilla and a "reader had to educate him". From what I have seen, when he talks about ancient history he has a better than 80% chance of falling over his own shoe laces. As in the example just mentioned. And as a historian he was really sloppy to use the French translation instead of the original source, not knowing the translation had errors.

4. Does the sentence "most Maria Valtorta's life is known "only by the autobiography she wrote" require any expertise in any subject? Certainly not. A clever first year university student can read the relevant literature and determine if that is the case or not.

5. What do we do when an author with a good publisher makes the statement "William Shakespear only wrote one book" and someoen adds that to Wikipedia? One option is to agree to delete it, the other to mark is as disputed and discuss. I think the statement "most Maria Valtorta's life is known "only by the autobiography she wrote" is so obviously false that leaving it there and marking it there as "disputed" will just reflect on the abilities of Bouflet, and wonder about the accuracy of the rest of what he says. So either way, please discuss if deletion, or marking as disputed is better. MY first instinct is to mark as disputed, and explain why it is flatly false.

But as I was reading Bouflet's work, I gained some sympathy for why he wrote the book. He fel he had to write it to respond to the exaggerations of what he calls the lobby valtortiste i.e. the Valtorta lobby in France. Some (but not all) members of that crowd make extremely exaggerated, incorrect and laughable statements. Bouflet rightly felt that he had to respond. But in the process, he has wondered off from his own field and has been falling over his own shoe laces in a number of cases.

I will stop now, but please stop the reverts and read

WP:CALM. Bouflet is not all good, and not all bad. So we shoud neither worship, nor execute him. And totally exclusing his from the articles will mean that some hot headed person will start an edit war to insist on his inclusion again. So he must be included selectively on subjects he has expertise. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

the statement "most Maria Valtorta's life is known "only by the autobiography she wrote" is so obviously false: please enlighten us. How is it false? In what way are details about Valtorta's first 46 years life known to us? Where are the biographies taking their information for those parts of ther life from? Veverve (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, I will certainly be able to enlighten you. There is plenty of enlightening to be done. That statement makes it sound like there is "not much more known" about Valtorta except from her autobiography. That is not the case. There is plenty more. Maria Valtorta moved to Viareggio in 1924, when she was about 27. She died at 64, so she lived most of her life in Viareggio. The period before she moved to Viareggio is only known from her autobiography, i.e. 27 years. For the next 37 years there are plenty of other sources.

1. Key information about Valtorta's life come from the "Mencarini sisters" who lived nnar her, were good friends. Some of them were still alive in 1995-2000. The book "Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta" (memories of women who knew Valtorta) by Albo Centoni ISBN ‎ 8879870408 provides a lot of information about those 37 years. But it seems to have never translated to French, so Bouflet did not read it I guess.

2. Marta Diciotti entered the Valtorta household in 1935 and remained with Valtorta until her death. The events of those years are in her book "Una vita con Maria Valtorta" (A life with Maria Valtorta) ISBN 8879870440. That has also not been translated to French it seems.

3. Maria Valtorta's letters to Ms Carinici, Migliorini etc. provide much more information.

I have not added u the page numbers, but the other sources are several times longer than the autobiography. And they cover the period of her life that is most relevant. So her autobiography provies a small part of what is known about her. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what 1) contains. 2) only concerns the latter half of her life. I have no idea what 3) contains, but it is a form of autobiography. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, you have eventually got it right: You have no idea. You have no idea what the books are about, and in general you have no idea about the subject being discussed, as you said. Item 3 is not autobiography, and again you are right that you have no idea about that. These books have different ISBNs from the autobiography Bouflet mentioned. What you need to do is: If you do not understand a subject, keep quiet. And certainly do not go to edit war on issues you admittedly do not understand.

The correct way Bouflet could have said it was: "The first 27 years of Valtorta's life is only known from her autobiography. For the next 37 years there are several additional, more comprehensive sources". But Bouflet is some type of champion of sloppiness, and has obviously not read those other books. I searched his book and he does not refer to them and does not seem to know that the Mencarini sisters exist! One of them is still alive. A "good historian" would read all there is on a subject before writing a book about it. Bouflet is a 3rd rate author at best, or may have gone senile now. But he is the champion of sloppiness from all the errors I have mentioned so far, and you have accepted. But rest assured that there is plenty more. Again, Bouflet will rue the day he started this book.

I will try to explain things to you, but there is one item you asked about and I can not help you with. On the other page you said that any additional information about the woman Aglae might be of interest to you. I looked through Valtorta's book and could not find an email address or phone number for Aglae. So you are out of luck, and have to look elsewhere for that kind of thing. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, now that a day has passed, I think we should just remove that incorrect statement by Bouflet, and move on. No need for more drama. But we need to remember that Bouflet is not a reliable source about the details of Valtorta's life. His book has other errors (which I will get to later), and he has obviously not read all there is to read. But it is obvious that he makes error after error, so is not reliable, except for his own opinions. He can be mentioned in the other article about criticism, in areas he understands, but using him about the date of the burial of Valtorta makes no sense since he was not there, and we have sources from people who were present. And using a book on fraud as a source for burial is not logical.

The book by Marta Diciotti (Valtorta's assistant) is the very best source for non-extraordinary issues about Valtorta's life, because she was there. There are photographs of her carrying the remains of Valtorta through the door of the Basilica in Florence, etc. And she is the best source for when Valtorta died because she was there, and when Valtorta met Fr Migliorini. There were only 3 people at the meeting, and she was the 3rd. So she is the best source. The fact that her book was published by Valtorta's publisher is no barrier to its being reliable, because at the end of the book there is a copy of a signed and notorized statement (under oath) by Marta that the contents are true. So in the next few days I will delete the incorrect statement by Bouflet, and add better sources for some of the "citation needed" flags. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the incorrect statement by Bouflet should be removed. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources are published by the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. But then again, you both have POV and believe Valtorta wrote Jesus' words, and whatever is published by militant sources is to you something that should be taken into account. You both consider the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano reliable, despite it being unreliable and created for the very purpose of pushing Valtorta's narrative and to promote her. In a few weeks' time, I expect both of you will make the article "fairly balanced" and "more complete" by adding the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano (an openly POV publisher with no scientific credential) as a source and information from said sources. Whatever.
Yesterday, all my dreams...: yeah, I am no expert and you have bought numerous POV books and you consider them reliable. Your knowledge in 'valtortian' apologetics makes you better than any historian if you want. Those who criticise Valtorta are senile who will rue the day they dared to attack, and their publishers are unprofessional, if you want. Whatever, your POV shows.
So, do you have any reliable source (sources not published by the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano are not reliable) that contradicts Bouflet? This is all that matters, sorry.
WP:NOTTRUTH
.
Veverve (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Veverve, are you really not able to see your own POV? You believe whatever is published by biased, and self-serving sources that support your POV (Bouflet in this case) is to you something that should be taken into account, even when their statements are provably false, e.g. that most Maria Valtorta's life is known "only by the autobiography she wrote".
A signed and notarized statement by Marta is more than enough to end the discussion on whether her biography is a reliable source. Sworn eye-witness testimony has always been considered high-value evidence in a court of law. Personally, I think her biography is reliable even without the sworn statement, as it is eye-witness testimony. But aside from that, there is also the Wikipedia policy that self-published sources are sometimes acceptable as reliable sources (if you consider Centro Editoriale Valtortiano to be self-published or quasi-self published):
WP:USINGSPS
Self-published doesn't mean bad
Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.
Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for third-party claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources. For example:
If you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
A self-published source by an expert may become an authoritative reference for a claim, as with the best-selling self-published book The Joy of Cooking as a source for claims about cooking techniques.
A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source.
Conversely, properly published sources are not always "good" or "reliable" or "usable", either. Being properly published does not guarantee that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, or subject to editorial control. Properly published sources can be unreliable, biased, and self-serving.
Arkenstrone (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use of self-published sources is strongly discouraged, and in general they may not be counted as carrying equivalent weight as published
WP:PG says it does not. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I think this argument with Veverve is circular and will never end. He is completely illogical of course, because Bouflet gets his own information from books published by Valtorta's publisher, as do other authors, else they could not even know Valtorta's date of birth and death and how many pages she wrote. Next step for Veverve is to answer the question "where did Bouflet get his information?". If Valtorta's publisher is unreliable, then all statements from Bouflet are unreliable because he used books by that publisher. Let us see what Veverve says, so we can have a good laugh at least. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot judge a source. It should be done with utmost care and reserved for very precise cases. As a general rule, even if Bouflet was to say something obviously and totally wrong, Bouflet's opinion should be kept;
WP:OR
.
Bouflet is reliably published and a reliable author. Now, if you disagree, then find reliable secondary sources. This is what a
WP:RS
is ans how it should be used.
When one has a
WP:POV
on a topic, such as believing such or such person has been the channel of God's words, one should treat the topic with utmost care on the subject. This is not your case, as one can see in your messages.
Your train of thoughts is: "a reliable secondary source uses or discusses primary or unreliable sources, thus those primary or unreliable sources are reliable and can be used on WP as is" and "if I individually can prove with any source that a reliable secondary source is wrong, then the reliable secondary source is proven to be wrong and its content should automatically be removed from WP". This shows you have no idea what Wikipedia is.
Stop your personnal attacks.
I have nothing to add, you can re-read my previous messages, which are way too numerous, if you still oppose my position. Veverve (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve, you are unnecessarily confusing and convoluting things. The issue is quite simple:
1. Bouflet may be considered a reliable source in some areas.
2. Bouflet made a statement outside his area of competency, stating that most Valtorta's life is known "only by the autobiography she wrote". This is provably false as shown by the multiple biographies provided by @Yesterday. At least one by a direct eye witness (Marta).
3. Because Bouflet is reliable in some areas, you make the false presumption that he is reliable in all areas he chooses to opine on.
4. Bouflet's lack of awareness of multiple Valtorta biographies (one with signed, sworn, and notarized statement), shows he is not aware of the available biographical literature, and consequently that he is not a reliable source in this area.
Given Bouflet's laziness, I'm inclined to exclude him altogether as an unreliable source. What else is he making false statements about? @Yesterday is taking a more nuanced view that perhaps Bouflet can still be used as a reliable source for other things, but not for anything to do with Valtorta's life (biography and autobiography). Arkenstrone (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RSN or alternatively an RfC as I suggested above. This back and forth has run its useful course and is clearly going nowhere at the speed of light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree. This discussion is circular, and is not likely to end in our lifetime, although the resulting tension may well shorten our lifetimes.

WP:RSN is the proper venue for seeking clarification. In my view Bouflet should not be totally excluded, but some of his statements need to be balanced by quoting other sources. The stumbling block at the heart of this discussion is the question: "Are all publications by Valtorta's publisher (Centro Editoria Valtortiano) unreliable?" That is the question to ask on WP:RSN. I will ask that question below, and also on WP:RSN. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Should all publications by Valtorta's publisher be automatically considered unreliable?

I am going to ask the question in the title of this section on

WP:RSN
. The discussion in this section will hopefully clarify the issue.

There are three possibilities:

1. All publications by Valtorta's publisher (Centro Editoria Valtortiano) fail
WP:RS
"automatically" and can not be used in Wikipedia at all.
2. All publications by Valtorta's publisher pass
WP:RS
"automatically" and can be used in Wikipedia.
3. Statements in books published by Valtorta's publisher can be used in Wikipedia if they involve no "extraordinary claims" such as supernatural origin for her work, or if they are subject to
WP:ABOUTSELF
etc.

Selecting the first option means that issues such as dates regarding where she went to school, or any details about her life can not be included. All that information comes from books published by her publisher, and is based on statements by her and people who knew her, e.g. neighbors, her housekeeper etc.

Selecting the second option means that all extraordinary claims about her can come into Wikipedia without collaboration from other sources. That is clearly not a possibility.

The third option is the best solution in my view. Statements by her in her autobiography are subject to

WP:ABOUTSELF
and statements by her assistant in the book about her life, and those based on interviews with neighbors etc. can also be included provided they involve no extraordinary claims about a supernatural origin, etc. Else the article can only have 2 or 3 lines. We should also remember that other sources which briefly mention her base their information on books by her publisher. There were very few people who knew her during her life.

I will ask this question on WP:RSN. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can all books by a publisher be classified as reliable or unreliable?. Veverve (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion that took place on
WP:RSN that use of these sources is not a barrier provided they are not used for "extraordinary claims", the consensus appears to be that we can safely use them for biographical information. As such, the sentence ascribed to Bouflet can be removed, as it is factually incorrect. I will do so momentarily. Arkenstrone (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
From what I read at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#Can all books by a publisher be classified as reliable or unreliable?, the only person who holds this position is Yesterday, all my dreams... Veverve (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same discussion? You've provided the link, so it would appear so, and yet your conclusions are not born out by the record:
1. "Unreliable publishers can (on occasion) publish reliable content and reliable sources can (and often frequently do) publish unreliable content. The analysis at a publisher-level is too sweeping in my opinion." ~ Augend
2. "Agree with Augend." ~ RadioactiveBoulevardier
3. "No. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS." ~ Bon courage
4. No, in a wonderful turn of phrase from User: Nableezy, I would direct you to what I call Masalha's Law: "“If Masalha wrote this on a soiled piece of toilet paper it would remain a reliable source based solely on his qualifications.”" ~ Boynamedsue
5. "Given they are published by [what] appears to be an advocacy group the works should at least be handled with a lot of care. -- LCU" ~ ActivelyDisinterested
@
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, with no extraordinary claims, and for routine biographical statements only. There was no objection by any participant in the discussion, including yourself. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Acknowledging the possible reliability of a publisher ≠ being able to remove a RS because it does not match with your original research. Veverve (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First,
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and Bouflet is clearly not RS on this point. Acknowledging that those sources can be used for biographical information, means that we don't need to pretend that they don't exist. Those sources prove that Bouflet is simply incorrect in his poorly researched statement, "Most of Maria Valtorta's life is known only by the autobiograpy she wrote." Consequently, there is no other option but to remove this statement. In any case, it isn't relevant. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Please avoid edit wars: they are like mud fights, both parties get mud

@Veverve, @Arkenstrone Please stop these silly, pointless reverts over one pathetic little sentence. At the end of the mudfight both parties will look bad, and usually nothing gets achieved. If you keep at this you will both get long rap sheets. And I think there may soon be an interaction ban between the two of you. Please calm down. Please be civilized.

@Ad Orientem, Do you think this page should be protected for a few days to avoid an unnecessary conflict over a small little sentence? Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my earlier comment above regarding self published sources, I would be reluctant to use my admin tools here out of an abundance of caution and deference to
WP:CATHOLIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ad Orientem, ok, sorry you feel you can not be involved as an admin. I just can not believe why any of this broohaha should tak eplace over one sentence. By the way, the books in question are not
WP:SELFPUBLISHED as discussed on WP:RSN, but are also not "independent" as users noted there, now in archive 405
. So the conclusion there was that their existence can not be denied but no extraordinary or controversial claims from them should be used. But all of that is beside the point until mud fights end.
But there are more important issues on the other page about the book, e.g. translation errors in going from French to English about what Bouflet said about domes etc. I will discuss those in time, after WWIII ends. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: I am going to stay away from this page until Monday. I think you guys should set your mind to do the same and "have a good weekend". Then restart calm and fresh. How about that? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc about removing Bouflet's statement on Valtorta's life and autobiography

I understood there to be implicit consensus after the discussion on WP:RSN. However, @Veverve indicated in his last revert that there was no consensus for the decision to remove this statement. Therefore to remove all possible doubt, please state your view and reason for the record:

Should the statement by Bouflet that "most of Maria Valtorta's life is known only by the autobiography she wrote" be removed from the article? Arkenstrone (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Yes. The statement is: 1) false because at least two biographies have been written as referenced in
WP:RSN above, and 2) not relevant to the article content. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Arkenstrone, you do not need any one's permission to start an Rfc. But only do so if you want a terrible summer. The NY times said that for the debate on "Beatles" vs "The Beatles" usage they had many Rfcs that lasted for one or two years. So maybe it is better to resolve things less dramatically. You do not want to get a rap sheet as long as Veverve, I am sure. So let us all calm down, please. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a simple vote with a short clear and concise reason in an attempt to record any consensus. Your yes/no vote, with brief reason would be appreciated in order to establish a record. You're calm, I'm calm, we're all calm. This is just part of the process since @Veverve maintains that there is no consensus. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use the proper template for an RfC. See
WP:RFC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is intended as an RfC for those actively participating in the editing process. Not a formal broader RfC (yet). Perhaps I should reword "RfC" to "Consensus"? Arkenstrone (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article gets very little active editing. Absent a proper RfC, I am not sure you will get enough participation to be able to resolve the ongoing content dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. You just gave me an idea. Given this article page has been translated into many different languages, these types of debates will most likely be had in the same article in other languages. Instead of repeating the same arguments and debates ad nauseam in many languages, why not reach out to active editors of this content in those other languages? Most of them are likely knowledgeable about the topic, and there will be the added benefit of getting input from native speakers of multiple languages, who may also bring to bear on the discussion resources and literature that may only be available in those languages. This should bring a broader, more meaningful consensus among active editors of this topic. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this again (below) as a consensus vote instead of "RfC". Arkenstrone (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, languages and required study

When Ad Orientem requested input on the subject at the Catholicism project, he made a refreshing logical statement and said "I am not sufficiently familiar with the topic or the sources to express an opinion". Well my friend, you right and you are not alone. But it is refreshing that you realize that you have not had time to read it all, and that the sources are in various languages that most people are confused about them. It takes time to read these things on a very, very controversial subject. And new sources appear, and may have appeared as I type this. People in different countries have very different ideas because they get small factoids in their language. This Wikipedia article will keep changing for the next 7 years. Then may slow down.

Let me give an example: Most people in Tuscany who read their key Newspaper La Nazione know that the

Archbishop of Lucca Msgr Paolo Giuliett has gone to pray in Viareggio in masses given for Valtorta and has talked in support of her at conferences about her, given that Viareggio is in the province of Lucca. This is reported in La Nazione here
among other places. There are even videos of his talks on you tube, but all in Italian. Most people around the word have no idea about this. Can it be mentioned in English Wikipedia? Your guess is as good as mine. But in time it will appear in the article, who knows when.

The same language barrier applies to Bouflet's book which is in French. Arkenstone has not read that because it is in French. Veverve has read parts of it (alas too quickly it seems) but has not read Valtorta's book because he does not even know what the section numbers refer to. Neither of them has read the book by Marta Diciotti (Valtorta's assistant) of course, because it is in Italian. So you have two people engaging in an edit war without having read the sources they are reverting on!

I have been working on an analysis of Bouflert's book

WP:RSN
but I am not ready yet. And guess what? Someone blanked out the page in my userspace! I restored it of course, and may seek protection for it until I am ready to go to WP:RSN.

I shoud make one final note here. As discussed on

WP:SELFPUBLISHED
but should also not be seen as independent. So their existence "can not be denied" but we should not include extraordinary claims from them. But the fact that Marta used to cook for Valtorta is not extraordinary, neither is the fact that they were evacuated during WWII. Many sources note that that part of Italy was getting bombed at the time anyway.

So the discussion here (and any Rfc) will likely take place among a group of people who have not studied the subject, but know how to click on the revert button. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you have two people engaging in an edit war without having read the sources they are reverting on!
This is not an accurate representation. Simply put:
1. Bouflet made a statement (RfC/consensus/vote above for those participating in editing these articles)
2. That statement has been translated into English by French speakers.
3. There is no ambiguity in terms of what Bouflet said.
4. That statement has been shown to be false.
5. Should the statement remain in the article or be removed?
Why are you making things unnecessarily complicated? Arkenstrone (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on removing Bouflet's statement on Valtorta's life and autobiography

Should the statement by Bouflet that "most of Maria Valtorta's life is known only by the autobiography she wrote" be removed from the article? Arkenstrone (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The statement is: 1) false because at least two biographies have been written as referenced in WP:RSN[14] and therefore Bouflet is not a reliable source on this issue (see
WP:NOTFALSE), and 2) the statement is not relevant to the article content. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
No, because the source is reliable. The existence of works by a militant publisher, and the original criticism by Wikipedia users of a source, is not enough to warrant deviating from the RS;
WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
No. Reliably sourced. Durifon (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because Joachim Bouflet's comments are negligent in failing to take into account, in particular, the book "Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta" (Memories of women who knew Valtorta) by Albo Centoni ISBN 8879870408, the book "Una vita con Maria Valtorta" (A life with Maria Valtorta) ISBN 8879870440 in his book "Impostures Mystiques". In the interview he gave on 14 May 2023 to the newspaper Le Monde des Religions, J. Bouflet expressed himself as follows: "In my opinion, the real keys to discernment are provided by all mystical theology, from Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, Doctors of the Church. By emphasising humility, transparency, simplicity and obedience, these mystics, in my opinion, show a path that is the opposite of that taken by the forgers, who are only interested in their own interests". And yet Maria Valtorta demonstrated throughout her life the qualities of humility, transparency, simplicity, obedience and self-effacement. Her writings bear witness to this, as do the testimonies of those who knew her.--Dave Aime (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)— Dave Aime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, get rid of this pointless little sentence. And let us move on. This sentence sticks out like a sore thuumb has no relevance to the other sections. It is made by an author distinguished by his exceptional sloppiness and inaccuracy. Any user with a brain who knows about the sources out there knows that Bouflet made this statement because he was careless and only checked the books available in French. I do not for one second buy the argument that he thought the other books were by some "crazy militant publisher", because the book he refers to is by the same publisher... chuckle, chuckle...

Does Bouflet make silly mistakes? Plenty. Consider his statement on page 105 of the Kindle version of his book that agave is mentioned 3 times in Valtorta's main book in sections 101, 102 and 127. Do we just quote that in Wikipedia and say "agave is mentioned 3 times in Valtorta's book" because Bouflet wrote it so it is "reliably sourced"? Of course not. Because Bouflet is sloppy and careless and he only noticed half of the places agave is mentioned. It is mentioned 6 times. Bouflet missed sections 67, 221 and 412. So he only noticed half of the places. agave is mentioned in Valtorta's book. And the info in the sections he missed invalidates his argument about the sections he noticed. Similrly, he missed the books by Marta Diciotti etc. about Valtorta's life, because he was careless. As simple as that. And I would not for one second accept the potential argument that Bouflet ignored the other sections because they were in a book by a "crazy militant publisher", given that they are in the same book. Accept the fact that Bouflet is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. So he can not just be quoted verbatim as a reliable source.

As an other example on page 103 (of the Kindle version) of his book Bouflet says that vanilla did not exist in ancient Judea but on page 106 he says that it did exist in ancient Judea. Which one of these two statements from this highy regarded, highly sloppy author do we include in Wikipedia? An author who is so sloppy and careless to fall over his own shoelaces every few pages is not reliable and can not be just quoted as reliable source. Is that hard to understand? Is it?

Other comments:

Ad Orientem, could you please, please explain to us once again that we should not rely on items such as

WP:VNTIA
in our arguments. I had never heard of that as a policy, and after I clicked through realized that it is a pointless "user essay" and neither a guideline nor a policy. So I laughed. Thank you Veverve for the continued entertainment. Now should the avoidance of user essays be explained to everyone in English, or perhaps an ancient language, say Aramaic, Hebrew or Koine Greek? That way it may be understood better, perhaps. English does not seem to be getting very far. I say that of course as a joke on Bouflet's insistence that Valtorta should have used the "first century word" for vanilla, and not the Italian word vaniglia in her book. That also made me laugh as I realized that the man has no sense of logic at all. What words should Valtorta have used for bread, wine, river, mountain, tree? Why should vanilla be a special case? The only thing that distinguishes vanilla is Bouflet's ignorance of its existence in ancient Judea. Can an author with such a defective sense of logic be considered reliable? No way.

Veverve, please, please study the subject first before you say anything about it. Do not just repeat everything Bouflet says verbatim. Think and study the subject first. Bouflet makes for a hopeless ventriloquist. No one gains repect by just repeating Bouflet verbatim. Study the subject, study Valtorta's works before you comment on them. Do not discuss what you have not studied. I will let you in on a secret. At the start of our discussion on the other page about the Poem book, I tested your knowledge of ancient Judea with a few simple questions. I soon realized that you had not studied either subject at all. And I mean at all. Please study first, then speak. Do not let Bouflet just speak for you. Study the subjects yourself. Let me explain. As a start I asked you who built the model of the Temple. You said it was the Israel Museum. At that point I understood that you had no idea who Michael Avi-Yonah was. Even the tourists in Jerusalem know that he built the model, and it was moved to the museum later. Those "in the know" also remember that he got a nice chunck of change from the hotel owner for building the model. The fact that you did not know who Avi-Yonah was, told me that you had no idea about the archaeology of ancient Judea. And once it was clear that you had no idea about the numismatic evidence that affects the Second Temple, you total lack of knowledge of the subject was confirmed. Separately, the fact that you did not know what section numbers Bouflet was refering to in Valtorta's book told me that you had not even held the book in your hand! Due to the fact that you do not understand the subject, you have made a mess of the translations and paraphrases you made in the Critisim Section of the Poem page. And of course you had no idea about your own errors. Reminds me of Bouflet not noticing his own errors. So please, please study the subject first, talk later. Do not talk without studying the subject.

Dave Aime, regarding what Bouflet told some newspaper, I would not pay attention to that. He has no idea who Maria Valtorta was because he has not read all the books about her. What is important is what the "local bishop" says. From a religious angle, the statements by the local bishop are very important about anyone who has claimed private revelations or is beng processed for beatification. That is built into the structure of the evaluations. In this case, the local bishop is the

Archbishop of Lucca
Msgr Paolo Guilietti and he is totally sold on Valtorta, as can be seen in these two videos [15] [16]. A translations of what he said is here [17] in English. And other languages are available here [18]. Now, what does Wiki policy say about youtube videos being used as
WP:RS
sources? I am not sure if there is a policy or not. And please, let no one immediately suggest that youtube is a "crazy militant" websit etc. @Ad Orientem, is there any policy about videos? Thanks.

@Everyone: Let us accept that when it comes to the sloppiness of Bouflet, the cat is out of the bag already. People can perform pointless edit wars on the subject on some Wiki pages, but the world at large will figure this out sooner as later. I am sure the Valtorta supporters look at pages like this, figure it out and write their own pieces about it. Then it will be common knowledge on the internet and newspapers will figure it out. No problem, no rush. So please do not get worked up about things, keep your calm and do not waste your life on edit wars. And above all, have a nice weekend. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity is the soul of wit. I garuntee that no one in going to read your innane fringy ranting.2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:RPA
:
"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor."
Arkenstrone (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The derogatory bits are about content (the "innane fringy ranting"), there is nothing derogatory about an editor at all in there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the source is reliable and the only arguments against its use are either personal disagreements with the source or personal religious convictions... Neither of which carry any weight in a discussion such as this one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back Thanks for your interest in this consensus vote. However, I noticed that you have not contributed to the article or talk page discussions. Every other vote cast is from someone that is actively involved in discussions on the article's talk page in one language or another. This consensus vote is intended for active participants in these discussions. We may choose to open it up to a more formal RfC in the near future regarding impeachability of the source (reliability of Bouflet), given @Yesterday's observations above, but for now we are focusing on active participants in these discussions only. Have you been actively partipating in these dicussions on one of the article talk pages in another language perhaps? Arkenstrone (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit, pure and utter bullshit. Any editor is free to participate in this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right. Any editor is free to participate in this or any discussion. But you have not participated in this discussion up until now, and suddenly you appear to participate in a consensus vote for which you have not been involved in any previous discussions? May I ask the reason for your sudden interest? Also please be
WP:CIVIL Arkenstrone (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That is entirely civil, bullshit is the neutral and civil descriptor for what you just tried to pull. Just making things up and pretending like you can decide who does and does not participate in a conversation is frankly unbelievable. What is not civil is questioning why another editor would choose to participate in a discussion unless you have a suspicion of wrongdoing, which I assume you do not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just making things up and pretending like you can decide who does and does not participate in a conversation is frankly unbelievable
You are strawmanning. No one is doing what you are saying. Anyone can participate. And that's the point. You have not participated in any previous discussion. Also, you didn't answer my question: why the interest in a consensus vote for an issue in which you have never particpated? Arkenstrone (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just below this you are pretending like IP editors can't participate in this conversation. I don't intend to answer your question. Why do you ask? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just below this you are pretending like IP editors can't participate in this conversation
False. It's the anonymous vote from a 2-week old IP account, that has not previously participated in any discussions that is concerning. Arkenstrone (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and you are pretending like that means they can't participate in this conversation... It doesn't matter that they're anonymous, it doesn't matter how old they are, and it doesn't matter whether they've previously participated in any related discussions. You are pretending like they can't participate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per HEB.2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to avoid gaming the consensus process, no anonymous votes please. Also, this consensus vote is for those who have been actively participating in the discussions on the article talk page in one of the article's sister language pages. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ban IP editors nor can you restrict a discussion to those who have been actively participating in the discussions on the article talk page in one of the article's sister language pages... I have unstruck the comment. If you try shenanigans like that again you will likely be blocked as a result. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that anonymous vote could come from anywhere, including someone that already voted and is wide open to gaming of the consensus process. It simply cannot stand. Whoever made it, can recast it non-anonymously. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editing is allowed, they're just as valid as any other editor. What policy or guideline are you basing these absurd claims on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid
WP:SOCKPUPPET
which is a Wikipedia policy:
On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.
Arkenstrone (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That account is not an identified sock puppet, its an IP editor in good standing with the community. There is no evidence that anyone is misusing multiple Wikipedia accounts and if there was the appropriate place would be at the relevant sock puppet investigation not here. Accusing someone of being a sock without evidence and without opening a case is considered a
WP:PERSONALATTACK, don't do it again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please re-read my previous comment regarding
WP:SOCKPUPPET. Voting anonymously leaves things wide-open to distorting consensus. Also, that IP account was first used only 2 weeks ago. If they want to vote on issues, they should open an account and participate in discussions, just like everyone else. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Voting anonymously is 100% allowed. If they want to vote on issues they can just do so, just like everyone else. If you think they're a sock puppet open a
WP:IP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Suggestion for HorseI and Arkenstone Please avoid the "petty bickering" about what the IP said. I could not be bothered. Any IP may be a patient in a mental institute who got access to a computer when the nurse at the front desk went to get a coffee. Or he may be Dan Quayle. It does not matter. What matters is that no one presented a single error in my statements because they do not know enough about the subjects to do so. If someone showed me that I do not understand the archaeology of ancent Judea or have not read Bouflet's book carefully enough then I would feel embarrased. But that has not happened, because I study things carefully. So people just vote by typing Yes/No. It does not take much intelligence to type Yes/No, and anyone with an IQ of 17 can do that and add "reliable" or "unreliable" in the sentence. That is how voting in Wikipedia works. So please do not get excited. I think one way to avoid unnecessary excitement is to look at the "bigger picture" and accept that our little debates here have less than a 0.0001% impact on the perception of Valtorta around the world. Think of it this way, this video [19] talks about and shows the translations of the Poem book into about 30 languages. Of these 20 are complete and ready for purchase from Swahili to Hangul to Malayalam to Romanian, etc. Another 10 will finish in about 2 or 3 years. People who read those 30 languages do not look at English Wikipedia and have no idea who Bouflet is/was. So our discussion here should not assume that it has "cosmic impact". It does not. So please calm down, if you are near a beach go for a swim, if you are near a lake go on a boat, if you are near a meadow, go for a walk, if you are in New York City, accept my condolences. But in any case, do calm down. As a final aside, let me note that the issue is not just a Catholic issue, because the video says that the Russian translation is being done by an Orthodox Russian priest. So it cuts acroos cultures and denominations. Our discussion here is like a small piece of sand on a lrge beach. No need to get excited, please. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to wrap up: I think it is time to wrap up. Somehow consensus or lack thereof needs to be determined, so we can move on. As WP:Consensus states: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." Given that most of the votes here were telegraphic I am not sure what will happen, but I do not care either way. So let us wrap up and move on. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Consensus Vote

From the results of the vote, it appears that consensus was not achieved. However, one good thing that came from this consensus vote is that it clarifies the underlying issue. One group believes that Bouflet's statement above (and other statements referenced in the sister article), should not be removed because he is a reliable source. The other group believes that Bouflet's statement above (and other statements referenced in the sister article) should be removed, because he is not a reliable source.

Therefore, it appears we may have to RfC in order to either maintain or impeach Bouflet as a reliable source. A

WP:RSN [20]
has already established that the two biographies written by first-hand witnesses and published by Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, while not an independent publisher, can be used, provided they are used with care and not to justify extraordinary claims, but only for routine biographical information. So it is futile to attack these two biographies and their publisher as "militant" etc. since we've already established they can be used subject to the above provisions.

The first question is, did Bouflet violate basic scholarship by ignoring these two biographies, which contradict his statement above, thus disqualifying him as a reliable source? (He made the provably false claim that almost all that is known about Valtorta is known from her autobiography).

The second question involves determining whether Bouflet is a reliable source in general, for various other points he makes which are referenced in the sister article. @Yesterday established that several of those points are fraught with serious errors and inconsistencies as well, and as such, Bouflet's scholarship on this topic is, at the very least, of low quality, getting basic facts wrong, and he should therefore not be considered a reliable source in general.

So, next step appears to be an RfC to maintain or impeach Bouflet as a reliable source. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkenstrone, as participant you are in no position to decide anything. Need to get an uninvolved admin to decide. And you seem to be counting votes. Does not work tht way as I said above. Some of the votes were telegrams with no rationale at all. Ask Ad Orientem for advice And wait before an unnecessary Rfc. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arkenstrone, as participant you are in no position to decide anything. Need to get an uninvolved admin to decide.
I'm not deciding anything. I'm simply noting that a consensus on this issue is not forthcoming. An RfC is precisely the tool to use to help resolve a lack of consensus due to a disagreement on the reliability of a source, by opening it up to the broader community, which will likely include, quite a few admins.
And you seem to be counting votes.
What about what I just said in the summary would give you this idea? I'm simply noting that consensus is not forthcoming on this issue. But, based on the brief justifcation provided to each vote, that the issue can neatly can be viewed as Bouflet is a reliable source vs. unreliable source. So? We can go further into this to determine if Bouflet is indeed reliable or unreliable.
Some of the votes were telegrams with no rationale at all. Ask Ad Orientem for advice And wait before an unnecessary Rfc.
Yes, the only 'rationale' provided was that "Bouflet is RS." That's just a statement, not a rationale. No reasons are provided for why this is so. Therefore, one purpose of an RfC is to help establish rationale both for and against. @Ad Orientem already mentioned above:
"@Arkenstrone If you wish to impeach this source, I think you need to open a discussion at WP:RSN or alternatively an RfC as I suggested above."
Arkenstrone (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arkenstone, I do not agree with your assessment, so we need an uninvolved admin to make a decision and then we will all agree with that. In my view, there were no specific reasons given for inclusion and there were significant resons given for deletion. And not one error was pointed out in my reasoning for deletion or Dave Aime's support for deletion. Hence deletion may be justified after admin review. That would avoid a 30 day long Rfc process. @Ad Orientem, is WP:Closure requests the apprpriate to seek closre? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine waiting for admin review, given the strong rationale provided for deletion vs. inclusion before embarking on any RfC. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be significantly misrepresenting what was established in that RSN discussion in a way which strains
WP:AGF to its very limit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Horse eye, I have not commented on the RSN discussion in this discussion. And I can not figure out how Arkenstone has interpreted it. So you are jumping the gun on that one I think. I do not see any significant debate on the RSN discussion in the discussions above. So you should just ease off on that one, and let it stand for what it was. Anyway, I have requested a closure by an admin. Let us all just accept whatthe admin decides. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comment wasn't directed at you (please check the indenting), sorry to have caused you distress. I don't understand what you mean by "So you should just ease off on that one, and let it stand for what it was." because its Arkenstrone and not me which is refusing to " let it stand for what it was" by saying this which are untrue about it. Surely we should not let things which are untrue stand? If you started the discussion and yet even you "can not figure out how Arkenstone has interpreted it" how is that not a problem? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural questions

Hello! I saw this page on

WP:CR, and I was going to provide a close, but I'm actually not sure what, procedurally, happened here, and I was hoping some editors might clarify. Pinging the users who participated: @Horse Eye's Back, Yesterday, all my dreams..., Arkenstrone, Dave Aime, Veverve, and Durifon
:.

(Full disclosure: I don't consider this to be participating, so I'd personally consider myself still eligible to close the discussion if that's what's called for.)

The discussion was placed under the RFCs section of

WP:SNOW is invoked. Even if this was an "other type of closing request" ... I'm not sure a close would be appropriate at this time. I've only superficially glanced at the !votes, but things seems fairly evenly split, numbers wise. Of course, consensus is not a vote, but I don't think I've seen an evenly split discussion closed after 7 days before. All this said, if everyone here wants a close, I'll provide one, but I want to make sure that is what everyone wants.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I concur. A close at this point is likely premature. That said, I made some comments farther up the the talk page that would make me reluctant to do anything adminny here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its been about a week, we don't appear to have consensus and its not exactly a pressing issue so I don't see the harm of letting it go another week to see if anyone new weighs in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe there was ever an RFC tag here. The idea was to see if we could arrive at local consensus first, doing an informal consensus vote among participants actively editing this article, and if that wasn't forthcoming, then do a formal RFC, opening it up to the broader community. Given this, how would you advise we proceed? Arkenstrone (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest—and again, I'm staying superficial here, but you all seem fairly far apart. I sort-of suspect an RFC might be forthcoming. If you were to do an rfc, I'd suggest doing it in a new section, and I'd also advise everyone try to focus on saying their points fairly concisely and not worry to much about replies. (Not calling anyone out—RFCBEFOREs often are long! But I also know that editors who see large blocks of text are going to be really hesitant to participate. And you can always link up to this section for additional background.) But of course it's really up to you all! You could also wait a little longer to see if discussion amongst yourselves leads to a compromise option that can obtain consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, the image makes a compelling point!! But I'm gonna have to—narrowly, of course—say Horse Eye's Back and Ad Orientem are bit more persuasive. Maybe a Shia Labeauf meme would've gotten me there, but Nike just doesn't cut it anymore.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There never was an RfC, only a request of opinions. As one can see, the box indicating an RfC is not present anywhere on this talk page. Veverve (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Freze Voices, Visions, and Apparitions

@Arkenstrone: On inspection this does not appear to be a reliable source, the author does not appear to possess academic credentials and they don't appear notable so their opinion doesn't carry any weight. Can you explain why you think that this source is reliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability score of Michael Freze is the same as Mitch Pacwa and the rest of the bystanders, namely 3 on a scale of 1 to 100. They are all clueless about the subject. They briefly look up some sources published by that "crazy militant publisher" we all know about summarize a couple of sentences and write it. They are just clueless because they have not studied the issues. They are all in teh same bucket. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this appears to be a problem... You appear knowledgable in this area, can you suggest some better sources? Preferably secular academic ones? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let us accept the fact that there were very few people who knew Maria Valtorta and almost all that was published about her was by Michele and Emilio Pisani. Most of those who say things in the English language literature look up the books by that publisher. The person who has done the most research and has personally met the Mencarini sisters, etc. who knew Valtorta is Fr Ernesto Zucchini. A professor of theology. But he is an offcial Valtorta supporter, so he will be objected to. Ironically, the author with the "most knowledge" was Albo Centoni because he interviewed all the people who knew Valtorta, tape recorded the interviews and published the two books in question here. He was a small college professor, not a big university academic. The only recent "independent" author who researched it is Antonio Socci, but he became a supporter, so he will be objected to. Let us accept that this is a controversial subject and the usual
WP:RS criteria will fail sources on all sides. In 5-7 years things may change, but for now, it is mostly an elephant in the village of the blind situation. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is that looking for reliability of sources that are impeccable is unrealistic in most cases. The fact is RS exists on a continuum, and we often have to accept that sources are not impeccable, but only adequate. Otherwise we would end up having to delete probably more than 50% of Wikipedia articles. We're not seeking perfection, and things will change.
Just do it. Add the Pisani, Centoni, Zucchini, and Socci sources, for the purpose of supporting biographical information. So what if they are Valtorta supporters? Every author is going to have an opinion on Valtorta. That's not really relevant. If the author is providing useful biographical information, based on eye-witness testimony, that is important and relevant. We just have to be cautious not to include any references to extraordinary claims if the work is not independent. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection, you might be right. But the right way to handle this is by applying an [unreliable source?] label and then discussing it on the talk page instead of just deleting the source and/or content. Give other editors a chance to discuss and/or come up with better sources. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arkenstrone, I would not add any of the books Pisani wrote because they are as self published as you can get. He owns the publisher. I also would not add Zucchini because he is too close to the project for promoting Valtorta and using him as a source will be a long discussion that will undoubtedly end in its deletion. I think Socci is 50/50 but he does not have anything that we could not get elsewhere. Adding him will just create debate with "no benefit" to the article. The only source I would add would be Centoni because he was an independent educator, did the interviews, taped them, and transcribed them. And we can get the biographical info we need from his work anyway. In fact we do not need that much biography anyway, all we need to say is: she was born on DateA and was injured on DateB. She was evacuated during the war, and that is it. Please do us all a favor and let us have a nice summer without fights and negative feelings about sources that buy us nothing. Trying to add all those sources will not buy anything for the article, but will create enough debate to fill up half of the Wikimedia disks. Let us use acouple of simple sources for biographical details, avoid controversial claims and have a nice and brief article. That is the way to have a good summer and a good article that will not create controversy next month. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor issues

A few minor issues need to get fixed in the article.

The first item is the use of ASIN instead of ISBN. I think the Wiki protocol calls for ISBN at the moment, because Amazon has not purchased Wikimedia yet (give it 2 years) and little stores such as Barnes & Noble still use ISBN, rather than ASIN that is just Amazon.

The second item is about external links. At the moment there are none. But Wikipedia:External links says that "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." There are two foundations that represent the subject of this article [21] and [22] and they should be in the external links. But I think we should avoid all blogs about the subject.

The third issue is that the article seems to suggest that she wrote "The Poem" first, then the Notebooks. That is not so, as can be seen by the dates on the sections of the book and the Notebooks. In fact she wrote them at the same time mostly from 1943-1947 but the Notebooks were published much later. And she wrote the Poem book out of order, e,g, the first section she wrote on Jan 16 1944 became section 52. The second section she wrote on Jan 21 1944 became section 235, etc. This needs careful sourcing so I would not jump to it yet, but it needs to be sourced and explained later.

The fourth issue is that there are many citation needed tags that can easily be fixed. I do not have time to do them all this week, but can try over the next month. However, help in fixing those will be appreciated. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Valtorta&oldid=1210827701"