Talk:Maria Valtorta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

@Arkenstrone: you have reverted the content four times, thus violating 3RR:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, the incorrect statement by Bouflet should be removed. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Use of self-published sources is strongly discouraged, and in general they may not be counted as carrying equivalent weight as published reliable secondary sources. See WP:SELFPUB which is part of WP:V. V is WP:POLICY. WP:USINGSPS is a WP:ESSAY which is effectively an op-ed piece and has no formal standing as opposed to policy and guidelines. Rare exceptions exist, such as when the author is an acknowledged expert on a subject. This normally has to be confirmed by other independent reliable secondary sources that expressly identify the author as an expert in the specific subject area. In such cases, per SELFPUB, their point will normally have already been made by one or more reliable secondary sources that are not self-published. These walls of text repeating the same points are becoming disruptive. See also WP:TE, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR. You may open a WP:RfC if you believe your self-published source should carry the weight you are assigning it. However, my understanding of WP:PG says it does not. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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:TRUTH. Your "debunking" is moot, your work is 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)

@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)

@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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@Yesterday's concluding comments simply affirmed the prior consensus that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. He clarified that these sources would indeed be handled "with a lot of care" with a strong sense of 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:INVOLVED. That said, I have requested extra eyes on the article at the talk page of WP:CATHOLIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 in my own user space here, so I can "eventually" present it on 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:RSN archive 405 the books in question by Valtorta's publisher are not 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You need to use the proper template for an RfC. See WP:RFC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Let's try this again (below) as a consensus vote instead of "RfC". Arkenstrone (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)