Jump to content

Talk:The Poem of the Man-God/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Imprimatur

The introduction says the poem has received the imprimatur of several bishops, but then the citation links to only one. Needs more citations throughout if it is to make these claims about this controversial topic. Most of the body does not have specific citations, and the references themselves are not numbered for referene. Carinamc (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The other is Archbishop Soosa Pakiam of India and I am pretty sure I have a hard copy record of a 3rd one, some Cardinal also from outside Italy. I will look for that, but I added the link for Pakiam. History2007 (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, some of the critical citations you added, used to be on the Valtorta page if you look carefully at the histories there too. There are some people who routinely remove those. So be ready to deal with that side of the story too. I have actually had to "tone down" some of the edits of some Valtorta supprters on her page, to make it balanced. As for the merging of the biographical parts, with Valtorta's page I think you have a good idea. But I will wait until you post the "new references" you find on this talk page and then I will edit both pages in detail. Thanks History2007 (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Thanks to users who added citations for the article. It's much better now, and readers can more effectively decide for themselves how to interpret the history of the work. I would also like to say that having in my hand the book by Roschini gives me much more confidence in some of the other claims. (It finally came from inter-library loan.) In it, it is very clear both that Roschini was a devout priest and scholar who found profound insight in Valtorta's work and that the Church appreciated his research and writings on the subject. It should pointed out, though, that he reminds readers that the position of the Church is that private revelations cannot contradict "public revelations." It seems that the best course of action for any practicing Catholic attempting to determine whether it is permissible to read the Poem consult his or her priest. Others, though, should decide for themselves.

Because this article has undergone so much scrutiny, I repeat my suggestion that the pages on Maria Valtora herself and this current page be combined, mainly using the current article.Carinamc (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am already mapping out the partial merger of the two pages. But there is more material on Valtorta to be added to her page, so there will still need to be two pages, but more on her life on her page and more on the book on this page. But I had to add references to this page first, because the merger will be easier that way. It will take a few weeks to do it right, but I will do it. As for Roschini, that is the interesting thing about Valtorta's writing: The Mariologists are impressed by the Mariology, the geologists are impressed by her geology and I read somewhere that an endocrinologist was impressed by the details of the convulsions during crucifixion that she depicted in detail. So, after you have finished reading Roschini, perhaps you should consider reading Valtorta. Regards History2007 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Roschini

I created a page for Gabriel Roschini since I had that hard to get book of his, and its preface was quite informative. Check it (and my discussion) out! Carinamc (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That page was needed. I started a stub for Roschini's book. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lonnie Lee VanZandt datations

Dear all, I have seen this good PDF file about astronomical datations, attributed to the theoretical physicist Lonnie Lee VanZandt. I think it could be good to include it.

http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~zak/Van_Zandt.pdf

Interesting paper at first reading. And the person posting it is an IEEE type. But I need to read it more carefully before summarizing it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research

The Vatican dilemma and other parts of the article are full of uncited factual claims. This needs work, either to identify sources, or to expunge the original research. patsw (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead links?

Is the website HeartofJesus.ca still active? (It currently provides links to airline tickets and auto loans.) Are the references #10 and #21 still reliable? ... and therefore the information they purport to support? Mannanan51 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

I did a search, it looks like they changed the site name to sacredheartofjesus.ca, so I changed that. History2007 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

1943 Notebooks

Should there be mention of Valtorta's writings previous to The Poem Of The Man-God? These were the writings that began on Good Friday, 1943. The Poem Of The Man-God was not begun until 1944. The pre-Poem writings include various subjects such as Mariology, Darwinism, and a number of other topics. A link to the full text is here: Dictations To Maria Valtorta (1943 Notebooks)

RugTimXII (talk) 06:01, 08 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.19.37 (talk)

Sources

While it seems clear that there are apparently strong feelings on the part of both defenders and detractors, this article relies entirely too much on: mariavaltorta.com, bardstown (whoever that is), mariavaltorta webring, Bishop Darylak, and valtorta publishing, plus a few which are somewhat difficult to identify. On the whole, it is difficult to assess the objectivity of statements put forth by a person/persons who seem vested in the controversy.Mannanan51 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51 (p.s) the caption "Vatican Dilemma" is itself editorializing. Maybe they haven't commented recently because they don't see they have a "dilemma".

Yes, that section was old and left over text from several years ago - I zapped it. And there are other book sources now, which per WP:ABOUTSELF means that her own web site can be used for information about herself. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering how she could run her own website knowing she died in 1961... --Lebob (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Position of the church

When the Church says the Poem "cannot be held to be of supernatural origin" and the Church's judgment on alleged revelations includes "confirmed to not be supernatural", how else is a Catholic to interpret the former as anything but the latter? Oct13 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your view of the Church's position is correct. The Church has expressed its position more than once. If your view is based not on the Church's statements about the "Poem" in particular, but instead on the generic document about the criteria for judging alleged revelations, you may also be right, but you can't make Wikipedia say that your application of that generic document to the "Poem" is correct. What is wrong with the article is its synthesis of generic norms by which bishops are to judge alleged revelations with this particular case. The article speaks of private revelation that may be "doctrinally dangerous" or "manifests hostility to lawful authority"; "it could even be demonic ... The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority" - and so on. These are generic criteria, not declarations about the "Poem". No reliable source has been cited as a basis for applying them to the particular case of the "Poem". Wikipedia cannot itself apply them to this particular case without such a citation. Removal from Wikipedia of this synthesis alters in no way what the article says about the Church's position on the book, namely that its alleged revelations "cannot be held to be of supernatural origin but must be considered simply as literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus". Esoglou (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that is simply not correct. As correctly explained by noted Mariologist, Dr. Mark Miravalle [1]:

>>The former Cardinal Ratzinger has also been cited as personally condemning The Poem. Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1985 comment to a fellow cardinal in a letter that speaks against the supernatural character of the literary forms of The Poem was not in the canonical or ecclesiastical form of an official and universally binding decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Nor did Cardinal Ratzinger in any way prohibit the reading of The Poem.

It can be helpful to keep in mind that when the former Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did indeed examine a text which they concluded contained intrinsic doctrinal error, they did not hesitate to issue, when deemed appropriate, an officially promulgated “Notification” concerning the respective text due to its inherent doctrinal errors. (6) No such Notification has ever been issued by the postconciliar CDF regarding The Poem of the Man-God.<<

Furthermore (ibid):

>>In addition, the extensive mariology contained in The Poem was also the subject of a 400 page study written by arguably the greatest Italian mariologist of the twentieth century and Consultor to the Holy Office, Rev. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (10) In a letter of January 17, 1974, Father Roschini received the congratulations of Pope Paul VI for his work entitled, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. The letter from the Secretary of State notes, “the Holy Father thanks you wholeheartedly for this new testimony of your respectful regards and wishes you to receive from your labor the consolation of abundant spiritual benefits.” (11) Neither the papal benediction granted by Pope Paul VI nor the papal congratulations issued through the Secretary of State would have been granted to a text based on a series of private revelations which were “forbidden” or declared “doctrinally erroneous” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.<< Spockvondeutschland (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)spockvondeutschland

Has anyone said that the Church has declared that the composition contains doctrinal errors? Oct13 only pointed out that the Church has said it is not of supernatural origin. The letter from the Secretariat of State – I doubt if it was signed by the Cardinal Secretary of State, but let that be – is like dozens sent out practically every day to thank someone, not for a book or other object that the person sends to the Holy Father, but for the expression of respect for the Holy Father manifested in sending him the book (or painting, or drawing, or craft object, or ...), and to invoke blessings on the sender, indeed usually, if the sender is a Catholic, speaking of the Pope's Apostolic Blessing. Interpreting this letter differently from the many others does not bespeak an objective attitude. Esoglou (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Index of Forbidden Books was formally abolished by the Vatican in 1965, but keeps its moral force ?

The quoted source isn't autoritative. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Title of the article

Shouldn't the title of the article have a hyphen as in the rest of the article? Freddiem (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The illustration of the book cover shows indeed that there is a hyphen. I have therefore performed the move. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Freddiem (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Should you change the title to "The Gospel as Revealed to me"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.249.33 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Poem of the Man-God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Poem of the Man-God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge

This article repeats a lot of what's already in the main article for Maria Valtorta> I suggest we merge the two as it's not as if the book is that notable to warrant an article by itself. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Poem of the Man-God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Book section numbers and text

Veverve, I saw that you entered the "exact French text" for 2 paragraphs on the Second Temple page. That was good of you, and also means that you have access to a soft copy. Could ypu please clarify things by adding the exact French text for the Tiberias and 5 year old child statement by Bouflet, so we know what he said. Did he mention the child age as 5, or did you? Please clarify that by providing the text in French here. Please also add the section number from Valtorta's book so readers know which section it is. I will appreciate it. Also please clarify the book title and ISBN. Amazon France has a Bouflet bok with a similar title, but not the title you used. Please add the ISBN and exact tile (as in Amazon) for clarity. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

ISBN added. The title is exact. I will not add the section number, because I have no idea what they refer to.
Here is the full quote:

on ne trouve nulle explication pour un autre anachronisme, à vrai dire autrement difficile à justifier. En effet, Maria Valtorta voit Jésus enfant (cinq ans environ, précise-t-elle) lors du séjour de la Sainte Famille en Égypte, dépité de n'avoir pas réussi à représenter le lac de Génésareth sur lequel il voulait faire voguer des feuilles sèches en guise de bateaux :

Jésus explique [à Joseph] son travail et son jeu et les difficultés qu'il rencontre dans l’exécution. Il voulait faire un lac comme celui de Génésareth (ce qui me fait supposer qu’on lui en avait parlé ou qu'on l'y avait conduit). Il voulait le faire en petit pour s'amuser. Ici était Tibériade, là Magdala, plus loin Capharnaüm (I, 37, 250).
Veverve (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies it. FYI, it is in section 37 of Valtorta's book. The situation with ficus carica and agave is also not clear from what the text in the article says. Could you please also provide the French text for those two, so it is clear what Bouflet said and meant. These are mentioned in several places so knowing what Bouflet wrote will help clarify things. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Here are the quotes (I hope it is not a copyright infringement):
Ficus carica:
La visionnaire l’évoque sept fois (en réalité six fois, la septième, elle ne cite que les « feuilles grasses des cactées », sans autre précision : V, 335, 273), et parle deux fois de ses fruits qui, à maturité, deviennent couleur « rouge brique » ou « corail » ; il s’agit soit du figuier de Barbarie originaire du Mexique, plus précisément de l'opuntia ficus indica sanguigna, la seule de l’espèce à donner des fruits rouges, soit de l'opuntia stricta ou humifusa, originaire des États-Unis et du Canada, qui produit des fruits pourpres, deux espèces qui ne peuvent se rencontrer en Terre Sainte à l’époque de Jésus.
Agave:
On rencontre l’agave trois fois. Parlant du muguet, Judas dit avec mépris : « On dirait du foin, rien de plus. Plus belle est la fleur de l’agave, si majestueuse, si puissante, digne de Dieu et de fleurir pour Dieu » (VI, 101, 154). Auparavant, un nommé Jonathas a souligné : « Trente années d’espérance oh ! La longue attente ! voilà : maintenant elles sont fleuries comme la fleur de l’agave solitaire » (II, 102, 168). Enfin, trois disciples du Baptiste comparent celui-ci à l’agave : « Il est grand le Baptiste et toujours plus grand. Il rappelle l’agave qui, près de mourir, sort un grand candélabre avec sa fleur à sept pétales qui flamboient et répandent son parfum » (II, 127, 352). La description de la fleur d’agave est fantaisiste, la plante produisant des grappes de fleurs tubulaires blanches, rosées ou jaunes, généralement inodores – c’est la sève de la plante qui est utilisée en parfumerie –, et non une fleur unique à sept pétales.
Veverve (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Veverve, it is not a copyvio, because you did not claim it as your own and did not type it into the article. And you only responded when another user, namy myself, prompted you for clarification. That is no copyvio, it is a response to clarification. So no problem on that. And thanks for the text. I will try to read it tomorrow. I have to go now. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.
You are wrong on what a copyvio is, please read WP:COPYVIO. A copyvio is any form of "copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed". There is some tolerance, quotes can be made, but they should not be too long. Veverve (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Veverve, That is a funny one. I say you did nothing wrong, you do not agree! But I know what WP:COPYVIO says. I also know what Wikipedia:Non-free content says, namely: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes".What you did is subject to that, it was not freely available, was attributed etc. So no problem. But no point debating it. Delete it if you want. I have already seen it. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Veverve, Thanks for the two "thank you signals" you have sent me so far for my edits. It is interesting that we disagree on 50% of issues, and agree on the other 50%. That is good balance I guess. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Thanks.

Logical secion titles

The section titles in the article just defy logic. There is a section called "Writing" with a single subsection called "Astronomy". Really! That is just illogical. Writing should be about... guess what, writing. And the section on "publication" comes after astronomy, but it logically closer to Writing. The Medjugorje section has 3 or 4 lines, but is a full section. That makes no sense. I think Writing and Publication are obviously more related than anything else, so should go together. Both Astronomy and Medjugorje are sections that support the book, so should go together. The Criticism opposes them, so is related. That is straightforward, and involves no changes to the text except a more logical structure. I will just do that. If you have different ideas, please do not start an edit war, and let us discuss. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Criticism is Weak

The paragraph regarding the anachronistic appearance of screwdrivers is disingenous and rather petty. Maria Valtorta specifically clarifies that she *thinks* it is a screwdriver. Obviously she is not a carpenter, and so she's not certain what the tool is and describes it as best she can. It was more likely a small chisel that looked like a flat-head screwdriver to the uninitiated.

In any case, an exceedingly minor point not worthy of quoting given the full quote below. If there is something more substantial that Fr. Philip Pavich mentioned, it would be better to quote that instead as an example. Here is the actual text, excerpted from The Gospel as Revealed to Me (Vol. 1):

"He is by Himself. He works diligently, but peacefully. No abrupt or impatient movement. He is precise and constant in His work. Nothing annoys Him: neither a knot in the wood which will not be planed, nor a screwdriver (I think it is a screwdriver) which falls twice from the bench, nor the smoke floating in the room which must irritate His eyes."

Arkenstrone (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Language and other issues

User:Arkenstrone, your comment is valid. But your challenge is that you obviously do not speak Italian, else would have known about the multiple books that support Valtorta's book. An example is Indagini scientifiche sugli scritti di Maria Valtorta by professor of engineering Emilio Matriciani, 2020. You can see it on Amazon.

Beyond that, the criticism, mostly based on the work of Joachim Bouflet. As I said on the Valtorta talk page, one has to question the validity of Joachim Bouflet as a source given his obvious lack of knowledge of the topic, and the history of Palestine. Bouflet states that Tiberias was not founded when Valtorta says she saw it. This is obviously incorrect given that Tiberias founded around 20 AD and Valtorta only saw it during the ministry of Jesus which started around 28-30 AD depending which scholars you ask. So Bouflet is totally incorrect. And his claim the archaeology has "proven" that the Second Temple had or did not have a dome is also incorrect. The shape of the Temple, dome or not is all based on conjecture, given that the Romans flattened it. Joachim Bouflet is no expert on these issues, and not a valid source.

Moreover, if there is a criticism section, for balance there should also be a support section that balances Pacwa's comment with supporting comments from many others. The section is pretty slanted and incorrect.

So you are generally right, but need to learn Italian ... sigh... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Indagini scientifiche sugli scritti di Maria Valtorta by professor of engineering Emilio Matriciani: its publisher, Fede & Cultura, is not reliable: judging by their records, they seem to be a typical very POV Traditional Catholic publisher ([1], [2]), and I found no review giving them any form of reputability.
I object: Bouflet is a reliable source published by a very reliable publisher.
  • Tiberias founded around 20 AD: yes. Valtorta only saw it during the ministry of Jesus which started around 28-30 AD depending which scholars you ask: Valtorta is at this point in the book (I, 37, 250) describing Tiberias when Jesus... was a child in Egypt, when Jesus was – Valtorta says – about 5 years old (so around 5-8 CE). Hence, Tiberias could not have existed at the time. By the way, Bouflet considers Tiberias to have been founded in 17 CE.
  • his claim the archaeology has "proven" that the Second Temple had or did not have a dome is also incorrect. The shape of the Temple, dome or not is all based on conjecture, given that the Romans flattened it: says who? Bouflet relies both on Flavius Joseph's description, and on two archeological excavations ("les fouilles menées par les équipes des archéologues Nahman Avigad en 1969-1980 dans la cité hérodienne de Jérusalem, et Yigael Shiloh en 1978-1982, dans la cité de David").
  • his obvious lack of knowledge of the topic, and the history of Palestine, Joachim Bouflet is no expert on these issues, and not a valid source: of course he is a valid source. He is a historian, a specialist of religious mysticism, and has publisheed numerous books in those fields. He also worked for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. He is also published by the very reputable Éditions du Cerf.
  • if there is a criticism section, for balance there should also be a support section that balances Pacwa's comment with supporting comments from many others: WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia:Criticism. All I see is that reliable sources have noted inconsistencies.
You seem to have a very strong POV on this issue. Veverve (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Veverve, here is challenge number 1 to you: edit the Wikipedia page on Second Temple and say that it has been "proven" that the temple had no dome. Let us see how long it takes before they object to that. My guess: you will not be able to assert that on that page as a certainty. So do that then we talk of the rest. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I made the proposal at the talk page, because it is not mentioned at this article.
challenge number 1 to you, do that then we talk of the rest: hey, you're the one starting this conversation and being opposed, not me. What's with this kind of behaviour? Veverve (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday, all my dreams... Thanks for your comments. Are you aware of an English translation of "Indagini scientifiche sugli scritti di Maria Valtorta"?
Regarding my previous note about the pettiness of the criticism of Valtorta's writing because she refers to a wood-working implement as a screwdriver instead of a chisel, was intended to suggest that if no better criticisms can be provided, this should probably be removed, since it is so petty, and the actual text reveals her true intentions: that she wasn't sure what it was.
Also the last version of the Arkenstrone article contained much more historical information, including a supporting section. However, that version was revision deleted because there were a few insufficiently paraphrased lines of text (copyright violation). I will add to that section (as well as others) with improved paraphrasing and better sources as soon as I get a chance. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
if no better criticisms can be provided, this should probably be removed, since it is so petty, and the actual text reveals her true intentions: that she wasn't sure what it was: she is sure of what it is in the first occurence, and one the second she says it looks like screwdrivers. You are doing WP:OR using primary sources to push your own militant WP:POV. Two reliable sources have noted this inconsistency. Veverve (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Veverve, I noticed that you asked that question on the Secon Temple Talk page. I will not type there not to influence the issue. As you noted, the lack of a dome as a "certainty" is not mentioned on that page. There is a good reason for that, archaeologists at large do not agree on what the Temple was like, given the ambiguities in Josephus. I happen to know the issues about ancient Jerusalem well, but my opinion is worth the same as yours, zero. So here is what I suggest as a nice way of dealing with this:

If by Sunday you find 3 solid sources about ancient Jerusalem that specifically state that the "Second Temple had no dome" I will apologize to you. If not you apologize to me. That is nice, civilized and fair, I think.

Have a good weekend, I will talk to you on Sunday. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

the lack of a dome as a "certainty" is not mentioned on that page: yes... and? The burden of proof is on you, not on me; and you have not produced any source stating there is no knowledge on whether the Second Temple had domes. The infobox image at Second Temple even has a reconstruction that has no dome at all. Veverve (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Who built the model? Do all archaeologists agree on it? I will bet you $100 5 to 1 that they do not agree. In fact if you research the issue you will see that there are archaologists who sell different esigns for the Temple to the amatuers who are fascinated by the possibilities. It seems that you need to do a lot more research on this topic. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Who built the model?: the Israel Museum. Or at least it approves it since it is where it is shown to the public. Veverve (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Models of the Temple

I am sorry, in the middle of all the other talking I did not notice that you responded above. A few points:

1. That model was not built by the Israel Museum. It was funded by hotel owner and built by Michael Avi-Yonah a long time ago, I can not remember when, but it was in the 20th century. It became popular and moved to the museum. It is called the Holyland Model of Jerusalem because of the name of the hotel.

2. Like all else based on Josephus, it was subject to debate and the Museum changed some things to correct the errors of Avi Yonah.

3. It is not the only model, and another model is in the Yeshiva University museum in NY. This one was funded by the Israel Exploration Society funders.

4. Both models agree that the central sanctuary had a "flat roof", as so does Valtorta who wrote that central sanctuary was like a cube. She does not say that part of the Temple had a dome. Hence the use of the term "domes" in her text and in the statement by Bouflet.

5. Let us remember that when it comes to Josephus the certain item is "scholarly disagreement". A readable article in NY Times "Historical Certainty Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place" [3] explains some of the confusions, if you are interested.

So Valtorta wrote that the central sanctuary was like a cube, as both models suggest but she wrote that there were domes elsewhere within the compound. So she does say "domes", but does not say where they were. Given all the historical uncertainty about the Temple, Bouflet seems to be the only person suggesting that there were "no domes".

And remember that saying there were no domes else Josephus would have mentioned them, is tantamount to saying that the Wall of China does not exist because Marco Polo did not mention it. And indeed Marco Polo did not mention the wall!

So that statement is a suggestion by Bouflet, and per WP:VOICE can not be made in the voice of Wikipedia. All we can say is that Bouflet has a "personal hypothesis" that there were no domes elsewhere in the compound. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Bouflet relies both on Josephus and on modern archeological excavations. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
, there is no queestion that Bouflet says he has used both Josephus and 1980 era excavations. I do not see that he specified which parts of Josephus he used. And I would just not use the term "modern excavations" because a lot has happened since then. Per WP:VOICE we must present what he said as "his position" on the issue and not as a widely accepted fact in archaeological circles. By the way, I have not checked his background yet. I know he has studied "history" but that is a different depapartment from archaeology. Has he ever been on an excavation anywhere? Does he have any experience in archaeology, or is he a newcomer to that field. And has he specified how he used Josephus, which book, which passage etc. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: You responded on other issues, but have not answered the question I asked just above. Please answer the question given that you added the item, and should be clear about what the source says and how he arrived at the conslusion. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I would just not use the term "modern excavations" because a lot has happened since then: like what? The second half of the 20th century is what I would use the term "modern" for.
  • As far as I know, he is not an archeologist. But this is irrelevant, as it is very common for historians to rely on archeological findings in their work.
  • has he specified how he used Josephus, which book, which passage etc.: no, he has not.
Veverve (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I also looked him up. Yes, he is not an archaeologist, and it shows. His degree was in "modern history" and he has done plenty on recent private revelations. That is his area. And he should be called a "modern historian" because he is not a historian of the antiquities. Now, he has wondered off, and he will come to rue the day he did so when professionals in the field look at his work on this. That is the usual fate of those who wonder into the archaeology of the Levant.

As for his not explaining his use of Josephus, that is unfortunate, and leaves his claim open to question, given that we know due to the lack of any form of scholarly concensus "there is nothing certain" about what Josephus wrote about the subject. I was hoping he had been more precise.

In fairness, I should tell you that there is no basis at all to the rumor that I was a contemporary of Josephus, and that I lived in Jerusalem at the same time as he did. But I have studied that subject for so long and know that city so well, that I sometimes think I must have passed Josephus on a street near Ophel on a Wednsday afternoon. So I was interested to know what he used in the works of my buddy Josephus. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What to do with Mitch?

@Veverve: and @Arkenstrone: The material in the Index section has a reference to Mitch Pacwa's article, which appeared in the "New Covenent Magazine" in February 1994, about 30 years ago. On the other page Veverve said that this was an ok magazine because Our Sunday Visitor was ok. I had never heard of this magazine, and after a search realized that it is as defunct as the Index. A search showed that although Sunday Visitor carried it, the magazine was the centerpiece of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement. This group's key features are faith healing and speaking in tongues ! Really ! There is no way on earth a magazine which is the flagship of faith healers speaking in tongues can be WP:RS. There is no way. That is just laughing at the concept of "reliable source". But if there is no mention of Mitch, some person or his brother wil try to add it anyway, because they thnk it is important. And a lot of what Pacwa says is just incorrect, because he got it from the now defunct Canadian distributor and jusr repeated it. That was his main source of info, and he said that he got it there anyway. I think we may have to mention Mitch as an old source in "one sentence" somehow but can not repeat what he said given its lack of reliability and errors galore. So the catch 22 may be avoided that way. We do need to mention the scew driver issue, ut may use Bouflet on that and avoid any discussion of Pacwa beyond the fact that he said something in a less than reliable, faith healing source. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

the magazine was the centerpiece of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement: where did you find this information? Veverve (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

On Nov 1 2019 the official facebook account of Catholic Charismatic Renewal had a post stating

"New Covenant Magazine, which was started by Ralph Martin, was the flagship monthly magazine of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal from 1972 to 2002. Thanks to the efforts of the Bentley Library at the University of Michigan, you can now view the archives online at this link: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000554189"

And per WP:ABOUTSELF that is a statement about themselves using their official account. WP:ABOUTSELF states that "This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites". Just do a Google search on "New Covenant Magazine" "Catholic Charismatic Renewal" with these quotes and you will see the post. Very simple. That is how I found it after another Google search mentioned the Catholic Charismatic. It is easy to find with Google. And it was their flagship magazine. They said so, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it qualifies as WP:ABOUTSELF, as it is a group claiming the production was their "flagship" and not the production itself claiming it. Veverve (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Look, the statement "the Magazine was the flagship magazine of the organization" is either valid/true, or not. There is no other possibility. Per WP:ABOUTSELF the statement is valid. So as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is a valid statement that the magazine was the flagship of the organization. That is straightforward logic. You can not posssibly claim that magazine to be a WP:RS source. Are you claiming the magazine to be a WP:RS source with a straight face? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Any organisation can claim "X works was our flagship"; this is not the magazine describing itself, but a completely separate organisation making claims about the magazine. Veverve (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Veverve, you have not answered the question: "Are you claiming the magazine to be a WP:RS source with a straight face?" Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the magazine is a RS due to its publisher. And my face is straight stating this. Veverve (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: Thank you for the answer. And please do forgive me for trying to understand your exact reasons. I wonder if your support of the magazine is based on your uncertainty that it is the magazine of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) or not. So if it had turned out that it is the magazine of the CCR would you still support it as WP:RS ? And if it later turns out to be the magazine of the faith healing, tongue speaking CCR will you still consider it WP:RS? That woud help clarify our discussion. Your help in clarifying the issue will be appreciated. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

So many errors... so little time

There are errors, ambiguities etc. in the text of the article. Some are minor e.g. the use of Planiteriun rather than simulation system, etc. Some are joke edits by pass through IPs. I will touch these up gradually, as time allows. Will also add relevant sources for some items. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Aglae, and the characterization of episodes

The criticism section of the article has a sentence about 'the presence of the word "vanilla" in the mouth of Aglae' being anachronistic. To begin wth, I think this needs an episode number in the Poem book (which is 168) so the reader can know where it is. Moreover, the profession of Aglae as a senator has no relevance at all to the historical issue being discussed. And the word being in her mouth rather "used by Aglae" makes that episode look like something that took place between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. That is a mischaracterization of the context because the section is about repentence, not what Bill and Monica used to do. I think we should simply say: 'the use of the word "vanilla" by the character Aglae in section 168' to be encyclopedic, and to the point. Veverve, could you once again be ever so helpful and clarify what Bouflet actually says in his book? Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What is anachronistic is that the word "vanilla" is recent. That is it. Veverve (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Veverve, thank you for making a partial modification.

Now what does the profession of Aglae have to do with the issue of recency? Obviously nothing. So to be to the point, with your permission, I should change that to say 'the use of the word "vanilla" during the first century AD by the character Aglae is anachronistic, since the term was only coined in the 16th century'. May I?

Secondly, how do we expect a Wikipedia user to find this in a 4,000 page book to double check? Why not add the section number? Does Bouflet give the section number? What does he actually say? The whole thing is too vague. Please clarify. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk • contribs) 05:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Nobody knows who this Aglae is, it is as far as I know a character exclusive to Valtorta's writings. Thus, a tiny explanation of who this character is, is welcome. The century in which she allegely lived is of course important to Bouflet's argument.
  • We are not here to help the reader check every details mentioned, but to give the opinion of secondary sources.
  • Does Bouflet give the section number?: yes, "(III, 168, 69)"
Veverve (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

We can talk about that separately. But a more important issue is that in that section the second paragraph does not directly attribute the statements to Bouflet, and per WP:VOICE should do so. In fact it runs over from Pacwa's comment so it almost reads like a comment from Pacwa. I will edit that to clarify. If you have questions please discuss here and let us avoid an edit war. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is the use of the word vanilla in a 20th century text anachronistic?

@Veverve: I am sorry but your edit about the use of the word "vanilla" in a 20th century text being anachronistic is unclear, questionable, and inconsistent on the part of Bouflet/you. The Italian language arrived around the 12th-14th century and did not exist in the first century AD. And there is no other word in Italian for vanilla except "vaniglia" i.e. vanilla. Given that Valtorta wrote for a 20th century audience there is no other word that could have been used to refer to vanilla. To refer to the "substace vanilla" the only word to use in Italian is "vaniglia" else the audience will not know what is being discussed. There is no anachronism there at the linguistic level.

Think of it this way, if Mark Antony asked Cleopatra for an "olive" and they spoke in Koine Greek as was common at the time, the report of that conversation in a 20th century text would have to use whatever a 20th century audience would understand as olive, not the Greek word "ελιά". So there is no "liguistic anachronism" here at all. Not at all. The only way to refer to the substance vanilla in a 20th century text is to use the word vanilla. There is no other way.

If the objection by Bouflet/you is on "historical grounds" then your edit should refer to a historical error and not a linguistic issue. The linguistic objection is inconsistent and needs to be marked as dubious in the article. Please clarify what the issue being addressed by Bouflet/you is, so I do not have to do that. Per WP:BURDEN please be precise and not telegraphic about "recency". If the objection is historical, Bouflet/you need to say that there was no vanilla in the 1st century AD. Is that what Bouflet/you mean? Please be precise in your answer. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Bouflet's argumet is: "vanilla" is a recent word, thus this words could not have been used in the 1st century. Had Valtorta seen the 1st century, she would have transcribed the word or expression used at the time and not vanilla.
This is Bouflet's argument. You can disagree with it but he is a RS. I do not have to defend his argument, what matters is reliability, not your own opinion.
I, Veverve, ask you to think of it as the same phenomenon as when some Africans use words like "gourd of sounds" (ngàùbê) to name what Europeans call tape recorder, and searchers recorded the expression "gourd of sounds" (Dictionnaire amoureux des langues, "Composés et dérivés"; this entry contains other examples of this type [source online]). Veverve (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
But if the conversation in the first century had been in Greek, the Italian reader would not have understood what Valtorta was writing. And the statement makes it "sound like" there was no vanilla in the first century, and of course there was. The impression given by the statement you made is that Valtorta thought "there was vanilla" but in fact there was not. In 2010 Bouflet's point may have seemed reasonable, but since then it does not. He would have known if he had been reading the Times of Israel at least. I will add a source to clarify that and avoid the confusion that there is a historical error. Thank you for explaining. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Bouflet does mention there was vanilla in Judea at the time. His argument is linguistic. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Re-read my previous message if you do not get the point. Veverve (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaah, so Bouflet does say that Vanilla existed at the time. That was what I was trying to get you to say. So why not clarify that in the section, rather than leaving it out, which creates vagueness. As you have seen, by reading your text I could not determine if Bouflet admitted that vanilla existed. That needs to be clarified and I will now add it, since you already wrote it. Please do not revert, else you will soon run over the 3 revert line. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I just bought an e-copy of Bouflet's book. I was right, he could not have possibly known about Finkelstein's excavation. It was just not the type of thing a modern historian like him would know about. And my intuition was correct. On pages 105-106 he said that he only found out about it after "an attentive reader" told him that Vanilla existed in Judea 3600 years ago. That was when he changed his position from historical to linguistic criticism. The reader taught him. He is no archaeologist, and it shows. But anyway, now the section makes it clear that vanilla existed, and that is less vague. Anyone with a brain will figure out that the linguistic argument is pretty weak. So we will just leave it that way. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Victims of translation

It is clear that Bouflet is the victim of the translators of Valtorta's book to French, as well as his own sloppiness. In their first year of their studies, all students of history are taught that they should use the original source not the translations that may have errors. Baouflet must have missed that class. The Italian text of section 127 does not have the word "petal" at all. The English translation was done correctly and also does not have the word petal. The French translators, I think there were two of them, victimized Bouflet. But a good historian woud have never, ever relied on a translation anyway. So he was a 50% victim. I marked that as disputed. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I will remove the argument altogether. And historians do use translations, eh. Veverve (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Psychological opinion available?

Valtorta was obviously a severely disturbed individual, has there been any discussion of her psychological state? (Her "poem" has all the credibility of the Quran or the Book of Mormon, two works by similarly gifted but damaged individuals).Achar Sva (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Bouflet, who is not a psychologist but has studied mystical claims in the past, discusses Valtorta's psychology in the "Conclusion : où est la fraude ?" section of his Impostures mystiques (2023).
In a nutshell, he states that Valtorta's writings about herself paint her as a serverly depressed and ill person who complains about being right without being acknowledged as such and regularly attacks those she deems to be her traitors and persecutors. Bouflet considers that the attacks pronounced by "Jesus" against Valtorta's entourage and written by Valtorta, as well as praises by Valtorta's "Jesus" in favour of Valtorta, are in fact Valtorta own complaints towards others and praises of herself.
He concludes, saying: "En fait, Maria Valtorta, si elle est de bonne foi – ce que nul ne saurait nier, sauf à juger ses dispositions intérieures –, apparaît en fin de compte comme une femme illusionnée et s’illusionnant sur elle-même. Assurément pieuse, sincère sans doute, elle avait un lourd passif de frustrations affectives et de souffrances psychologiques autant que physiques, et vraisemblablement était douée de facultés paranormales qui faisaient d’elle un médium inconscient". Veverve (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
That sounds about right. It belongs in the article on the woman herself, though - what interests me are the parallels between the various examples of this genre of "visionary" literature, and thus the comparisons that can be made with the Book of Mormon etc. Incidentally, this article really needs a summary of the book itself. Achar Sva (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I asked ChatGPT for 200 word summary, this is what it gave me:
The Poem of the Man-God" (Il Poema dell'Uomo-Dio) is a controversial work attributed to the Italian author Maria Valtorta. Published between 1956 and 1959, the book presents itself as a comprehensive narrative of the life of Jesus Christ, drawing heavily on Valtorta's purported mystical visions and inner dictation.
Spanning over five volumes, "The Poem of the Man-God" delves into various aspects of Jesus' life, including his childhood, ministry, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection. Valtorta claims that her work was divinely inspired and that she received detailed visions and revelations, enabling her to provide an intimate and vivid portrayal of Jesus' experiences and teachings.
While some readers have praised the book for its devotional and imaginative qualities, "The Poem of the Man-God" has been met with significant controversy. The Catholic Church has expressed reservations and concerns about the book, although it has not been formally condemned. Critics point to historical inaccuracies, theological discrepancies, and the blending of fiction and scripture as reasons for skepticism.
Despite the debates surrounding its authenticity and theological implications, "The Poem of the Man-God" has attracted a dedicated following among some Christian readers. Its impact has been significant, with translations into several languages and its influence on religious discourse and personal spirituality.
Ultimately, opinions on "The Poem of the Man-God" remain divided, and readers are encouraged to approach it with discernment and critical analysis.
Achar Sva (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: how is a ChatGPT summary relevant in the discussion, what are you trying to say? Also, you have copy-pasted the same text twice. Veverve (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how the double-posting came about, but I've corrected it. Is ChatGPT a valid source? Jimmy Wales thinks it's at least an interesting development, although he leans towards keeping human editors for now (I was listening to him on a podcast discussing this). My real point is that I think the article needs a summary of the book, although I don't think the ChatGPT version is quite right. Achar Sva (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
ChatGPT is not a reliable source at all to me. Veverve (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting. I can not find good enough words to express how that comment influenced my viewpoint. So, thank you. These young people (I assume you are) keep teaching us older types again and again. I had never used ChatCPT, but now I will. I was really impressed by how informed and well balanced the output from that program was. This is light years away from ELIZA. And it is still an early version of ChatGPT. In 2 years it will be much better informed.

Implications:

1. There is no need to debate if ChatGPT is a valid source or if it can be used in Wikipedia. Over 90% of the users will soon get their info from ChatGPT and its upcoming competitor from Google anyway. We can debate for ever what a Wikipediia aerticle would say, but the younger generation, and soon, the older generation like myself will use that "by default" and if they ever get around to it, may also look at Wikipedia. So there is no need to get worked up about Wikipedia information given that the AI systems will soon be the default information source. And there is no need to waste life on ANI on debates that get archived in the dustbin of history. The future has just started, and it is automatic information delivery.
2. If you want to do something nice for yourself, become a "ChatGPT consultant" by the end of the year. It will be the hottest business, with very high fees. The "search engine optimization" industry is small, but active, but there will be a multi-billion dollar ChatGPT consultaning market. And those programs can undoubtedly be influenced within the next 5 years because their developers do not have their defences up yet. Companies like General Motors wil pay almost anything just to influence ChatGPT by 2%.

There is a saying that one always learns something on Wikiedia, often through surprising developments. That just happened. I realized that soon people will ask ChatGPT if Wikipedia is reliable, not the other way around. So no need to get worked up, but a good idea to focus on ChatGPT. Thank you, again. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

AI and Machine Learning is only as good as the corpus of data upon which the AI is trained, or upon which inferences are made. I have posed several controversial questions to ChatGPT, on several topics, and it got them terribly wrong, giving inaccurate information, and sometimes false information. Why? Because the data on which it is basing these inferences is biased, incorrect, or incomplete. These technologies can be used to augment knowledge, as long as you understand their limitations, but should definitely not be relied upon as unbiased arbiters of truth. They can be manipulated and programmed (a form of soft-censorship) to provide only from a set of "acceptable" answers in order to mold public opinion. Think 1984 on steroids. One of the corpuses of data ChatGPT uses is very likely Wikipedia. Arkenstrone (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

See also

@Horse Eye's Back, regarding your reversion of the 'see also' addition: "things linked in article don't go in See also", I was unaware of that. Can you provide a policy link or discussion link to support your statement? Arkenstrone (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Happily, WP:SEEALSO: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability

@Arkenstrone: what makes you think that the author and publisher is reliable? You used the quote "a leading publisher of local and regional content in the United States." but this isn't local or regional content (Valtorta appears to have no connection to New Orleans or the southern United States), so why is it reliable for it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think that he isn't? If you really think he is unreliable, you can impeach the source on WP:RSN. In addition, Pelican Publishing Company acquired by Arcadia Publishing, "is a leading publisher of local and regional content in the United States." Arkenstrone (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes and its also "the central publishing house of the Neo-Confederate movement," or did you not get that far on their page? Either they're fringe racists or they're a reliable publisher, which one is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
That's your personal opinion (fringe rascist). Are you really going to make the argument that because they published a few books relating to controversial issues surrounding the Civil War (many respectable scholars have also made the argument that the Civil War was not fought primarily to end slavery), thousands of other unrelated books and authors somehow lose reliability? If you want to impeach them as a publisher there's always WP:RSN. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Its not my personal opinion, if it was you would have noticed a few choice curse words. There is no such thing as a respectable Neo-Confederate scholar, there is no such thing as a non-racist Neo-Confederate in the same way that there is no non-antisemitic Neo-Nazi. Yes, publishing fringe texts make a publisher unreliable. Note that its the person who wants to use the source which needs to get consensus for its reliability, in this context that would be you. Even if they weren't a fringe publisher there would be the issue that this isn't "local and regional content" by any stretch of the imagination. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You are making strawman arguments, a type of logical fallacy that distorts an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In any case, I'm not interested in debating you on your views and opinions regarding the Civil War, confederacy, anti-semitism, nazism, or any other topic unrelated to the purpose of this article.
Also, I would point out that, even though Bouflet's book is riddled with innaccuracies, errors, falsehoods, and generally poor arguments, because he is published by what most consider a reliable publisher, in order to impeach his book as a reliable source, we will need to open a WP:RSN and make our case as mentioned by @Ad Orientem above. Make no mistake, that will happen, it's just a matter of time.
If you wish to impeach a publisher that is widely considered a reliable publisher (Arcadia Publishing who acquired Pelican Publishing Company), you will also need to open an WP:RSN. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not turning Neo-Confederates into a straw man versions of anything, thats what Neo-Confederates are (they are already an extreme fringe, to make them a straw man would take great effort). Arcadia Publishing is not the publisher. I have no opinion on whether or not Bouflet is a reliable source, you've presented nothing convincing in that regard (for instance a review of his book). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
First strawman of my words, now misrepresentation of my words. I didn't say what you implied I said. I couldn't give one jot about anything to do with neo-confederates, so stop bringing it up. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the other half of the argument... Even if the publisher is reliable for local and regional content this is not local or regional content. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with New Orleans, Louisiana, or the America South at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Not relevant. They've published thousands of books spanning a wide range of topics, and are widely considered reliable. As I said before, if you truly believe the publisher is unreliable, file an WP:RSN. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that they are widely considered reliable across a wide range of topics. Can you share the source for that statement? Also again, it is the person who seeks to use a source upon whom the burden to get consensus for the source's reliability rests not anyone else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
You have the unpleasant habit of misrepresenting my words and arguing against your misrepresentation. Please stop.
I said: 1) they've published thousands of books spanning a wide range of topics, and 2) they are widely considered reliable (they are a leading publisher in the US of regional content).
Now, you can attempt to build consensus for your disruptive edits (WP:DISRUPT and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) or you can WP:RSN.
We already have implicit consensus for these sources. If you wish to make substantive changes, the onus is on you to establish explicit consensus, given editors here don't agree with your edits involving the removal of reliable sources and content. WP:CON, and WP:EDITCON. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Mitch Pacwa and the New Covenant: Do you guys know how to type in tongues?

I said on the other page that Mitch Pacwa is as unreliable as Freze. I think we need to address that. In a section above "What to do with Mitch?" I mentioned that Mitch Pacwa's article was in the New Covenant. It was opublished about 30 years ago.

There are 3 ways to know that The New Covenant was the centerpiece of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, known for faith healing and speaking in tongues. First, on Nov 1 2019 the official facebook account of Catholic Charismatic Renewal had a post stating

"New Covenant Magazine, which was started by Ralph Martin, was the flagship monthly magazine of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal from 1972 to 2002. Thanks to the efforts of the Bentley Library at the University of Michigan, you can now view the archives online at this link: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000554189"

WP:ABOUTSELF states that "This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites". So the group clains it is theirs.

The second way to know is that the magazine's editor agrees with that. In the final issue of the New Covenent, the editor (Mike Aquilina) said that it was born by turning the monthly newsletter of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal into a magazine format. So the magazine claims it, and you can see that in the archives.

The third way to know it is that independent books say the same. The book Transatlantic Charismatic Renewal, by Andrew Atherstone is an example. On page 152 it says that the New Covenent was the "quasi officialmagazine of the CCR" (CCR = atholic Charismatic Renewal). It says the same on other pages too. The book Radical Christian Communities by Thomas Rausch says that also on page 181. And Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office 1973 page 410 refers to it as the "Monthly Magazine Serving the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church". And the book Confessions of a Born-Again Catholic by Daniel Weigand says on page 131 that "The Charismatic Renewal even developed its own magazine, New Covenant."

So there is no question that the New Covenant was the key magazine of the faith healing, tongue speaking group Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Are we going to claim that it is a WP:RS source without laughing out loud? Or shall we claim that in tongues, to fit the occasion? I do not know how to type in tongues, but if any of you guys know how to do that, may be you should claim it to be WP:RS and type that in tongues. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Screwdriver Criticism

In the Criticism section there is this statement in the first paragraph and supported by Bouflet's book Fraudes Mystiques Récentes:

"Screwdrivers are mentioned by Valtorta twice in her work despite not appearing in the historical record of that time."

Excerpt of the actual text from The Gospel as Revealed to Me (Ch. 42, Vol. 1):

"He is by Himself. He works diligently, but peacefully. No abrupt or impatient movement. He is precise and constant in His work. Nothing annoys Him: neither a knot in the wood which will not be planed, nor a screwdriver (I think it is a screwdriver) which falls twice from the bench, nor the smoke floating in the room which must irritate His eyes."

Clearly, Valtorta does not say the object is a screwdriver, but that she thinks it's a screwdriver. She is not a carpenter, and is unsure what the object is. Given this, Bouflet's statement above is clearly misrepresenting what Valtorta actually said, and should, at the very least, be removed. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It would make sense to move it down to the next paragraph where it would be attributed instead of presented in wiki voice. I think you will find that the problem with removing Bouflet entirely is that Bouflet is currently the only independent reliable source we have covering the subject. Perhaps this subject is not notable and shouldn't have a stand-alone article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
...the problem with removing Bouflet entirely is that Bouflet is currently the only independent reliable source we have covering the subject
Bouflet may be a reliable source in his other works, but he is not reliable in his criticsms of Valtorta — too many documented errors and misrepresentations, as already outlined by @Yesterday. There may be legitimate criticism of Valtorta's work, and if there are, I'm fine including them, but as we have seen so far, his criticisms are not it.
When you say "this subject is not notable" what are you referring to? Are you referring to the criticism section?
If you are referring to the article in general, having critical sources for a work is not the only critera that makes a subject notable for inclusion. There are plenty of other reasons that make the subject notable. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The only thing which can make the subject notable is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Currently Bouflet is our only such source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
So start an RfC if you think the subject does not qualify. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
That would be an WP:AFD not a RfC on this talk page. In the meantime I will tag the page for notability in the hope that someone can find some reliable coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you seriously telling me that placement of these books on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Holy Office, and the controversy that resulted as a result, with many reliable sources discussing the work and the controversy, does not qualify as notable? You sir, are making no sense. I'm removing the tag, because, as anyone can see, there are quite a few reliable sources already, and more coming.
If you want to continue this ridiculous undertaking, go file an WP:AFD. There is no consensus for your unilateral actions here. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
If "many reliable sources discussing the work and the controversy" then we should be citing them. I'm having a hard time finding them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Despite the fact that you've attempted to remove them (reliable sources) from the article, in a misguided attempt to then bring into question the article's lack of 'notability', have a closer look at the References section. The Poem of the Man-God#References. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
What am I missing? Michael Freze does not appear to be a scholar, not seeing notability from the second one, The Woman and the Dragon: The Apparitions of Mary would appear not to be a scholarly work but the authors opinion is ok to include it just doesn't count towards notability, then we have a primary source document from the Vatican (usable, but doesn't contribute to notability), then an opinion piece which is ok for opinion but again doesn't count towards notability, then we have a non-published paper which is again ok for the opinion of the author if the author is notable but doesn't count towards notability, then we have a piece which is ok for Roscisni's opinion but doesn't count towards notability, then we have the final piece which I would say does count towards notability but you say its unreliable in which case it wouldn't count. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
What you're missing is your failure to remove your rose-colored, misguided, agenda-driven glasses that seeks to remove reliable sources in an attempt to then petition the article for deletion for lack of 'notability'.
  • Freze appears to be a domain expert, having written 20 books published by reputable publishers including large Catholic publisher OSV Press.
  • Fr. Peter Rookey, O.S.M., is a domain expert and Catholic priest, smaller independent book publisher with hundreds of Catholic titles.
  • Lindsey, also appears to be a domain expert with several published books, reliable independent book publisher with thousands of titles.
  • Vatican primary source document, for the highly notable event of having a work placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. This event, alone, makes the Poem, and this article, notable. ("Reliable independent secondary sources" you ask? Above and below).
  • Van Zandt, Professor of Physics at Purdue University. Domain expert in physics, with 85 publications in technical journals and supervisor to 11 Ph.D students.
  • Fr. Roscini, O.S.M., world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome in 1950 under Pope Pius XII, professor at the Lateran Pontifical University, Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Written over 790 articles and 130 books. Prior General of the Order of the Servants of Mary, Vicar General, and General Director of its studies. He was also a member of several scholarly academies, and vice-president of the Pontifical Academy of Our Lady Immaculate (founded in 1847). Highly reliable source and domain expert.
Arkenstrone (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to delete it, I'm philosophically an inclusionist. The only way they could be a domain expert is to publish in the academic literature, if all they've done is publish with non-academic Catholic presses thats a none-starter. Same for Rookey, I'm not seeing them publishing in the academic literature. Lindsey does appear to be fine, but again unless the publisher is also reliable it can only be used for Lindsey's opinion and doesn't contribute to notability. "This event, alone, makes the Poem, and this article, notable." no event can make something notable, the only way something can be notable is through significant coverage in independent reliable sources (perhaps you misunderstand what WP:N means? It means something radically different than it did a decade ago when you were last active). Van Zandt's piece is pre-publication and unfinished, it was released bu his friends and family after his death so yes it can be used for his opinion but no it doesn't contribute to notability. Yes Roscini the author is reliable, the publisher is not so we can only use the piece for Roscini's opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Academic literature is not the only source for reliability. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the discussion that took place on WP:RSN[4] before you began editing here. In response to the question "Can all books by a publisher be classified as reliable or unreliable?":
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
Arkenstrone (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
no event can make something notable, the only way something can be notable is through significant coverage in independent reliable sources
That would appear to be a highly misleading summary of that discussion, are you sure there isn't more? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Not intended as a summary of the full discussion, but only the first 4 responses that are relevant to the current discussion regarding analysis of RS at publisher level being too sweeping. The other responses drill down into more details about specific sources which is not relevant to this discussion. Arkenstrone (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you misread my statement. If you take it context, you will notice that I followed that statement in parantheses with: ("Reliable independent secondary sources" you ask? Above and below) referring precisely to the coverage in independent reliable sources that you mention. But as a side point, those authors wouldn't have covered the event if they didn't believe it possessed some degree of notability to begin with. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Opinion pieces don't contribute to notability, no matter who the author is and no matter where they're published. You were informed in that discussion that these pieces did not count as independent coverage, were you not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to say that, as you quoted, "Screwdrivers are mentioned by Valtorta twice in her work", but you did not mention the time she clearly states Joseph's workshop contains screwdrivers (I, 37, 250). Veverve (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


Holy Moly! Did any of you guys break your keyboards typing all this? The long and short of it is that you guys have not read Bouflet, or not not carefull at least. Did I mention that? Did I mention that? The fact is that Bouflet does not agree with Pacwa!

He saya he leaves it to teh reader to decide unlike Pacwa who says that Valtorta mentions a screw. She does not. Bouflet seems to have noticed that error at least. But you would need to read his book to know that... Yes, you would need to read Bouflet's book to know that... Sorry this is like a long discussion about travel in China by people who have never been there. The best option is to put a falg that "this section contradicts itself". Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such flag/tag, sources contradicting each other on matters of opinion isn't a problem... We just attribute the opinion to whoever expresses it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hw about a section version of the tag above Griko language: This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Section contradicts itself. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
But a section containing contradicting arguments isn't a problem, thats what its supposed to do when there are conflicting opinions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
That section has plenty of other problems, including confused translation, etc. But let us talk about Mitch first, as below. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the article again and if we are going to be WP:RS (at last) Michael Lindsey, Woman and Dragon has to go. It is in no way reliable in my view. The same may apply to Peter Rookey, which is border line and 50/50 if he is WP:RS. But Freze and Lindsey are out in the unreliable territory for sure. Michael Lindsey is also used in the Valtorta page and should probably be deleted there too. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at Lindsey's book Woman and the Dragon in any detail? It is very well written, of scholarly quality, decent publisher, and it is well referenced with over 80 high-quality scholarly references, including 3 from Laurentin. Remember, we're not looking for RS perfection. There is no justification for removing Lindsey in my view. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater in your zeal for RS purity. Arkenstrone (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Arkenstone, I think WP:RS purity is good. That is how we get quality. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
RS purity as an ideal is commendable and admirable. But as a rigid and uncompromising practice it is untenable. As I said, you would end up with probably a fraction of Wikipedia and a lot of useful information discarded. We seek the highest RS, but often need to be content with adequate or just 'okay' RS if nothing better is currently available. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What Bouflet actually said about screwdrivers

After all this, it is time to look at what Bouflet actually said about screwdrivers. On page 102 of the French Kindle version of his book, Bouflet said that the screwdriver issue is one of the frequently discussed issues, but it is charactrized as not an anachronism by Valtorta supporters. He then reported what the Valtorta supporters say, namely that in one case Valtorta wrote"it looks like a screw driver" and in another case they were small items and that both references may have been wood chisels that resemled screwdrivers. He then simply added the word "admittedly" and moved on. He never exprssed a criticism of Valtorta on the screwdriver issue. Hence the brief sentence in teh article now needs to be fixed per WP:VOICE to attribuite it to Bouflet and then clarify that he did not criticize Valtorta for it. I will fix that now to end this long debate which took place without readin Bouflet's book. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC).

Can you elaborate on the final sentence of the screwdriver section:
"He then simply added the word "admittedly" after presenting that argument."
What does that mean exactly? What is Bouflet saying with the word "admittedly"? This sentence might need a few more words to clarify what is being said as it's a little unclear. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Lost in translation, found in translation: Cupola, Coupole, Dôme and Dome

There are translation problems in the criticism section, arising from the lack of familiarity with Valtorta's text and all the languages involved: Italian, French and English. In secion 8 of the book Valtorta uses the Italian word "cupola" which may mean a small hemisphere or a very large one. The Italian word "duomo" does not translate to dome in English or French and refers to a building with or without a hemispheric covering, e.g. Duomo di Milano. Both the small round cupola at the top and the large dome of Florence Cathedral are called "cupola" in Italian, and only context determines if the reference is to a large of small hemispheric structure. Given that Valtorta mentions several "cupolas" that resemble huge half oranges around the cube-like structure of the inner sanctuary the context indicates small cupolas.

In his book Bouflet uses the French word "Coupole" rather than the word "Dôme" because he is aware of the reference to half oranges. But the translation in the Wikipedia section here translated "coupole" to "dome" in English, and the presentation seems to suggest that it was a dome like the Dome of the Rock. But that is certainly an incorrect translation and the correct term is cupola in English. So I will fix that now. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If Bouflet is WP:RS, so is Laurentin

The suggestion that Bouflet is one of the few WP:RS sources on the subject of this page was made somewhere on this talk page. I think we must remember that there are other authors, and a good example is Rene Laurentin. If Bouflet's book is WP:RS, so is Laurentin's. A simple comparison will make this clear.

In terms of notability, is Laurentin more notable than Bouflet? Certainly. An easy criterion is that Buflet does not have enough notability yet to get his own page on English Wikipedia. Laurentin has had one for long. And in terms of scholarly publications, Laurentin is way ahead of Bouflet and has had respected university positions for long.

Secondly, does Bouflet consider Laurentin a better scholar? Yes, because Bouflet accepted Laurentin as the person who wrote the preface to one of Bouflet's books namely "Encyclopédie des phénomènes extraordinaires dans la vie mystique". The preface to a book is usually written by a scholar of higher standing. Anyone n teh field will tell you that Laurentin is a more noted and more respected scholar than Bouflet.

The next issue is the publisher. Is the publisher SALVATOR reliable? Yes, it is certainly as reliable as Éditions du Cerf which published Bouflet's book used in this article. And SALVATOR also publishes some of Bouflet's other books, e.g. the book "Le charnier de la République".

Hence Laurentin's book "Dictionnaire des personnages de'L'Evangile selon Maria Valtorta", SALVATOR 2012 ISBN 2706709618 is certainly WP:RS. I think that book needs to be mentioned in this article along with Bouflet's book for balance. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  • I do not see what notability has to do with being a RS.
  • The whole preface thing is more of a tasseomancy exercise than a real proof.
  • Laurentin is a theolgian, not a historian.
  • While I do not consider Salvator editions unreliable, they are lesse reliable and reputable than the Éditions du Cerf
  • for balance: back at it again claiming the article is not balanced (WP:FALSEBALANCE) and that you have to create a balance between "pro-" and "not pro-", I see...
Veverve (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, let us start with what we agree on. There is no dispute here that SALVATOR is a reliable publisher. We may differ on how it compares with Cerf but we are in agreement that in general it is a "reliable publisher".

Now about the author, namely Laurentin. I mentioned the issue of Laurentin writing the preface to Bouflet to note that they obviously know each other, share a publisher and that like all other authors in the field Bouflet considers Laurentin a respected scholar. That brings us to another question: "Is Rene Laurentin a respected scholar?" That is certainly the case.

I used the term notable to refer to Laurentin in the general sense of the word and did not link it to WP:NOTABILITY because I was making the point that Laurentin is not some grad student who just finished his thesis and published his first book. He is an established author and was professor of theology at various respected universities. And you are not disagreeing with that. It is not possible to disagree with that, given Laurentin's track record.

Now the key issue: Have you read the book in question? Do you even know what it is about? I have the book on the shelf here and would be glad to discuss it with you. The book is about "Biblical names" and how Valtorta's book handles them. The best person to handle the issue of Biblical references is a theologian like Laurentin, not a modern historian like Bouflet. Laurentin is fully qualified to address the subject of Biblical names, and what appears in the Hebrew Bible, etc . I am not suggesting that Laurentin be used on the issue of first world war, but on Biblical references. He is totally reliable on that issue.

Hence Laurentin's book on Biblical name references is certainly a reliable source on that issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Laurentin is clearly WP:RS on these issues. He definitely needs to be included. So is Lavere with respect to ancient geography. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Arkenstone, the publisher for Laurentin's book on names is solid and reliable. The publisher for Lavere's book on geography is flimsy and will not pass WP:RS requirements. In 5-7 years some new author may write something on geography and publish it in a WP:RS source. At that point it can be added, but not now. You need to wait 5 years on that one, but Laurentin is solid. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain why you think the publisher for Lavere's book on geography is flimsy and will not pass WP:RS?
Is Lavere reliable as an author? Is the book well-written and well-referenced? Arkenstrone (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstone, once again you are on about a book you have not read a single page of, and I dare say not even touched! Once again, please "do not push your luck" on subjects you have not studied. I am really tired of having to read books to people here, because they do not bother to read them. I know that you consider me a "WP:RS purist" but you are not going to convince me that the geography book is WP:RS. Go and read the book, then spend 2-3 years to understand the geography of the Levant via general study, then come and dicuss it. Not before. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I asked you a simple question in good-faith, giving you a chance to explain your position. Instead, you respond by going off on some ridiculous self-important, holier-than-thou tangent. I'm not interested in your tangents or dismissive attitude. If you can't answer that simple question straightforwardly, then don't be surprised when that book appears as a citation.
In case you didn't get the bulletin, Wikipedia doesn't require you to be a domain expert and study 2-3 years on a specific topic in order to contribute to an article. Does it help? Sure. But it's not a prerequisite. There are many ways editors can contribute, building their domain expertise on a topic as they contribute to articles on those topics.
A true WP:RS 'purist' (cf. distortionist) would deeply understand WP:RS, and also the interplay between reliable publishers, authors, and content. From WP:SOURCEDEF:
"When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:
1. The piece of work itself (the article, book)
2. The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
3. The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
Just because a given publisher of a work may not generally be considered reliable, doesn't necessarily mean the author or the work itself are defacto unreliable as well. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
I suggest you re-read the discussion you began at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#Can all books by a publisher be classified as reliable or unreliable?. The consensus was "no" as it is too broad and sweeping a generalization. You seem to have a view of WP:RS that is a caricature of what it actually is. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Arkenstone, let me put it this way: no. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A few minor issues

A few minor issues remain in this article.

First, the dates of writing. The fist section written was on Jan 16, 1947 and became section 52 of the book. On April 28 1947 she wrote section 652, and after that only 9 sections over the next several years. And even Lindsey (surprise, surprise) got that right and said that the book was mostly written in 3 years. That needs correction. And it was based on 10,000 of the 15,000 pages, the other 5,000 became the Notebooks. Laurentin also says it was almost entirely written in about 3 years.

Second item, the name Danylak does not seem to appear in Lindset's book, but Gagnon is mentioned. However, that is speculation by Gagnon and Laurentin specificaly says in (Indagine su Maria) that Pius XII nver assumed any official position n the book. But the most telling item is in the book by Pisani (self pub alas, so not useable) and is aphotocopy of a handwritten note by Carinci that Pius XII was very positive about Valtorta but made no official declaration. So that needs to get fixed, to avoid the "invention of the imprimatur" that is the main hobby of the Valtorta crowd in Canada. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Lindsey says "Maria began receiving her visions from Christ on Good Friday, the 23rd of April, 1943." And later, "Most of Maria’s visions occurred during and after WWII, between 1943 and 1947. By 1953, Maria’s notebook included almost 15,000 pages of hand-written notes. Her 5,000 page Poem of the Man-God, which is an expanded narrative of the Gospels, was finished in 1947." So it looks like all her writing took place in a period of 10 years from 1943 to 1953, with most of the visions written between 1943 and 1947. Though, Lindsey doesn't specify what portion of the 15k pages became the Poem, and what portion became the Notebooks. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Danylak's comment, it appears that the source from whence it came was deleted some time ago in an over-zealous removal of sources and content. So no, it is not attributable to Lindsey's book. However, I'm currently seeking clarification for the use of the original source for this statement.
Regarding Gagnon, it is stated in Lindsey: "When consulted, Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family and Doctor in Canon Law, wrote from the Vatican in 1987: “…this judgment by the Holy Father in 1948 was an official Imprimatur of the type given before witnesses.”
So it's not invented. However, the official Imprimatur isn't formally written either. We don't need to go into more detail, unless you really want to. It is sufficient to report Gagnon's written words and leave it at that. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You can add Danylak back as soon as you find the source for it. I added Laurentin to carify, and I corrected the dates. If she wrote 9 of the 652 sections (ie about 1.3%) after April 1947 then 98% of the book was written n 3 years. And the bok was based on 10,000 pages the other 5000 are Notebooks. And I reduced the 700 (!) section item, given that the book has 652 sections. We must get these "basic facts" right at least. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
One item I need to mention is that I did not add the date "Jan 16 1944" as the first date and just said Jan 1944 because it was the evening of that day the book says and there is a debate as to if that was Jan 17 by the time it was finished. No need to get into those details. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

For the records, on the content of this article

For the records and anyone stumbling upon this: I left this article as well as Maria Valtorta at the hand to two true believers (users who believe Maria Valtorta was the channel God used to reveal a message to humanity) who seem to believe militant websites are reliable sources, and are very good at producing walls of texts and getting very angry at people (be they academic or WP users) who dare being skeptic on the topic (it is not helpful that almost nobody cares or write books about Maria Valtorta apart from true believers). Horse Eye's Back seem to have also given up on those articles too. This is why the quality of the articles is now where it is. Veverve (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I agreed with the deletion of the blog links. But the rest of the sources are WP:RS. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The quality of the articles is steadily improving, even though it may not agree with your POV. Only reliable sources are being used. After a closer examiniation of WP:RS, I agree, many of the original citations were in fact not WP:RS from several months ago which you removed. I'm adding back only those for which I receive confirmation that they are indeed WP:RS. Specifically, newspaper photocopies are WP:RS no matter where they are hosted, even on personal blogs or websites, because the newspaper itself is reliably published content. You can read the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Acceptable use of primary sources on non-independent websites Arkenstrone (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Let us avoid any and all blogs

Arkenstone, please, please avoid BLOGS. They add nothing to the article. And please avod reverts. Veverve and myself agree that there should be no blog links. Please avoid these unnecessary headaches and edit wars. Please just revert your last blog addition, and avoid the headaches. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I received confirmation that newspaper photocopies are WP:RS no matter where they are hosted, even on personal blogs or websites, because the newspaper itself is reliably published content. You can read the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Acceptable use of primary sources on non-independent websites Arkenstrone (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Arkenstone, I am not going to get into an edit war on this. But I agree with Veverve that these blog links are not proper. My final question to you: how do you spell stubborn, with one b or two? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Noted. Two. I have support of WP:RSN that citations to newspaper photostats are indeed WP:RS no matter where they are hosted, including personal websites. In any case, the personal websites which hosts these newspaper photocopies are not visible in the article, just the newspaper article name, title, and link. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Reliability of the book Enigma Valtorta

I think the book Enigma Valtorta being used in the article is not reliable, given that the author is an engineer with no previous publication record on topics such as theology, botany, etc. I have already started a discussion about it on the WP:RS noticeboard. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS, again, and not in source

Arkenstone, you added a statement by Marco Giraudo made to Berti and sourced it to the French edition of the Enigma book. What did you do, look up an English version on the "dreaded Australian website" again? We both know that you do not speak French so why did you source it that way? Did you think I would not figure it out? I am just tired, tired of your never ending quest to add every possible blog or low quality item to Wikipedia.

Buddy, I have all these books in my library and I have "read them", which is more than I can say for you. I have the Italian version of that book and the statement was not made to Berti and was too vague to know who it was made to. The Australian web site made an error as usual, and you fell for it. You need to stop pushing your luck, else will be blocked. I will request a block on you if you continue this. And as you know, I always do things carefully, so I will make sure the block request has enough material to succeed.

And you obviously have no idea about the situation in Rome in 1962, else you would not have added that dumb statement. In 1962 the insiders at the Vatican knew that Pope John XXIII was terminally ill, but used their usual public deception approach and kept quiet. In the meantime Ottaviani was consolidating his position. So for Giraudo to make that statement on behalf of the "Holy See" is laughable. And Lavere's book gives no indication where he got that statement. It is just nonsense, and you are utterly clueless about it. Do you even know who the publisher of that book is?

My guess is that unless you get a warning or a block, you will keep adding these questionable sources again and again, waiting for an objection. It is just tiring to try to teach you to "read, read, read" before you type. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstone, you added a statement by Marco Giraudo made to Berti and sourced it to the French edition of the Enigma book. What did you do, look up an English version on the "dreaded Australian website" again?
Sourced to the French edition, as that appeared to be the canonical edition, though it appears the Italian edition is also quite popular. I have both the French edition and English translation, so I can compare them. Not sure what you are referring to in regards to the dreaded Australian website.
You seem to be making assumptions. In any case, what I lack in terms of fluency in any given language I can make up for in other ways, including translation services.
Buddy, I have all these books in my library and I have "read them", which is more than I can say for you. I have the Italian version of that book and the statement was not made to Berti and was too vague to know who it was made to
More foolish assumptions.
Also, you are engaging in WP:OR which is not our job as editors of Wikipedia articles. If you'd like to do original research, I suggest you go write your own book.
The only error I made was a transcription error in the quotation, which I corrected. Errors happen. And you've made your fair share. But I don't berate you on it, I just correct when I see something that stands out. In any case, this isn't a pissing context, so knock it off.
You need to stop pushing your luck, else will be blocked. You need to stop pushing your luck, else will be blocked. I will request a block on you if you continue this.
Is that a threat? Doesn't seem very civil or in keeping with WP:NPA. Not to mention, based on faulty assumptions.
And you obviously have no idea about the situation in Rome in 1962.
Are you engaging in WP:OR again? None of that is relevant.
My guess is that unless you get a warning or a block...
Your guess is irrelevant. And please stop all attacks, threats and attempts at self-aggrandizement (it's really quite tiresome), and instead focus on article content in polite and civil discourse. Also, I am not interested in your attempts to engage in unsolicited "teaching". If you take issue with anything, you can politely bring it up on the talk page, always presuming good-faith, and explain your view without resorting to personal attacks or foolish assumptions.
Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
First note that the page on WP:OR states that "This policy does not apply to talk pages". So, I know policy. Secondly my statement that I may request a block on your account is not a threat or a personal attack, but a warning. Any editor may warn another that their edit behavior may lead to a block. You have already been cautioned by more than one user about the reliability sources you use, so you are familiar with the concept. My goal is to stop this article from becoming a "fantacy land" with exaggerated claims. Do I claim to have deep knowledge of the subject? Yes. I do, and there is no policy against claimig knowledge on talk pages. As an example, consider the statement you have added that in 1962 someone wrote "You have our total approbation to continue the publication of this second edition of The Gospel as revealed to me by Maria Valtorta". Then do some research to see when the title The Gospel as revealed to me was first used for the book. You will see that it was in the 1970's. That statement is contradictory. I know that, other people will figure it out after research.
You just removed the tags I had placed on the questionable sourcs you had added. You should not remove tags. I will restore them. You are not allowed to remove them while there is discussion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
First note that the page on WP:OR states that "This policy does not apply to talk pages".
Right, and yet you are engaging in original research, which isn't relevant here, since nothing can come of it in terms of being added to the article.
As an example, consider the statement you have added that in 1962 someone wrote "You have our total approbation to continue the publication of this second edition of The Gospel as revealed to me by Maria Valtorta"
You mean, a bit like the statement by Bouflet that all that is known about Valtorta's life is known from her autobiography? It would seem that truthfulness is not a pre-requisite for inclusion in Wikipedia. That sources can and often do say things that are incorrect. But that, judging from the amount of incorrect information being cited from Bouflet, truth is not the underlying concern, but rather, only that it is attributed.
Regarding the quote above, it would seem Lavere may have interposed The Gospel as Revealed to Me in place of the Poem of the Man-God which is most likely an error in the editing process. But the error has to do with the correct title of the work which actually did indeed change to that title some years later, and not a truly substantive error like those made by Bouflet.
Contradiction? Not quite. It doesn't change the meaning. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Finally, many of your disparaging statements that are directed personally at me are not appropriate, and can easily be construed as personal attacks. If you wish to discuss, keep it about the content, and not about any editor. That shouldn't be difficult. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"truth is not the underlying concern, but rather, only that it is attributed." Yes, you are pretty much quoting our WP:verifiability policy "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus

I this edit summary[5] you claim that "That brief sentence has already achieved consensus" but I can't find the consensus you're refering to. Can you supply links or diffs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through this? That sentence in the section Astronomical analysis was added months ago, and achieved implicit consensus, which is the vast majority of consensus that occurs on Wikipedia WP:EDITCON:
"Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time."
If you wish to remove that statement, you need to supply reasons based in WP policy. The onus is on you to achieve consensus to remove that sentence basing it on WP policy, reasoned arguments, and common sense. What policy are you citing? Arkenstrone (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
"An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." The edit was disputed/reverted. WP:ONUS states "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Note that this is the exact opposite of where you said the onus fell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Your bolded statement applies to newly added content that is disputed. Not to content that has already achieved implicit or explicit consensus. There is a common sense reason for this if you stop to think about it. Imagine a controversial article where every couple of months some new editor comes along and disputes material that was agreed on months previously, and removes it. That article would never make any progress because a continuous stream of new editors believes they can override previous consensus. Therefore, the onus is on new editors of an article who wish to challenge established consensus, to base their desired changes on WP policy, reasoned arguments, and common sense, thereby establishing a new consensus. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
"An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." it was in fact newly added... By you... After I removed it... You ended the explicit consensus which had been established by my edit just as my edit ended the explicit consensus that had been established by the editor before me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
That's Alice in Wonderland thinking. The material was added on May 12, 2023 as seen here: [6] There was no objection, therefore implicit consensus was achieved. You then came in about 3 weeks later to remove the material stating in your edit summary that it wasn't related to the article (but it really is as it shows the results of van Zandtz were duplicated elsewhere).[7] Arkenstrone (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that unless there was an explicit consensus that editor could in fact come back every few months and revert it, the behavior problem would be with those adding content which doesn't have an explicit consensus not with the ones removing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Not true. Implict consensus is consensus. And it doesn't matter whether someone is adding or removing material. Yes, you can come back later after months and add or remove material, but if there is an objection to the addition/removal, then the original state of the article is restored, and a discussion takes place rooted in WP policy why the material should be either added or removed. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me make things easy and prolong the life of yur keybiards. I am 45% for inclusion and 55% for exclusion of the Newton Fotheringham item. Trust me that the whole issue of the crescent of the moon is pretty complicated and can lead to unnecessary headaches as users who have not studied ancient calendars weigh in. And Horse Eye has a valid point about Van Zandt not mentioning it. So let it be.

But the explanation is that section is very confusing and I will try to clan it up in a week or so or when I have time. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mattriciani and De Caro also mention Newton coming up with the 34 AD date of the crucification in at least one of their papers (Literary Fiction or Ancient Astronomical and Meteorological Observations in the Work of Maria Valtorta?). Arkenstrone (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

July 12 Trims to the article

Horse Eye and myself removed some questionable items from the article today. Arkenstrone, per WP:BURDEN (specially item c) please do not revert these changes without discussion.

Another issue is that Arkenstone stated that he would like to add Padre Pio in the support section. In my view the Padre Pio story is the most laughable of all the claims made on the "Blogs for the Brainless" websites about Valtorta, given that it is 2nd hand anonymous hearsay. And of course Cazenave used that as a key item in his statement! So please avoid adding the Padre Pio item for it is far out hearsay.

It is about time this article started to look less like an advertising brochure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

After a day of thinkng about the issues, here is my analysis of what can go back after the trims above.

First, let me address the issue of the text analysis article from the journal Religions/MDPI. As I said exactly 30 days ago, [8] when that source was added to this article, I do have general concerns about the use of MDPI articles. So on June 14, 2023 I predicted that the text analysis item would be deleted by someone within 2 weeks because it was "just too much" to remain in the article. I did not bother to argue the point because I knew that it was going to be deleted anyway. As it happened it was deleted 2 weeks later than I expected, but deleted it was.

But I should say that the deletion was not fully justified by the assumption that all MDPI articlea are condemened to death. Although there were discussions in 2014-2015 that MDPI was a predatory publisher, It is no longer on that list. It does have critics (myself included) but not all MDPI journals are "automatically condemned to death" as sources. I searched the relevant discussions on WP:RSNB archives and the general feeling there was that some of its journals are borderline, but each case needs to be decided in its own right, and based on the authors involved. But I still think this text analysis article should not go back, because its 700 years of text issue is a huge statement.

The situation with the other paper mentioned above (but never added to this article as a source) namely "Literary Fiction or Ancient Astronomical and Meteorological Observations" is different. It was also publushed in Religions, but the authors are well versed in the subject. Matricciani is a "sattelite man" by profession and his book "Meccanica celeste e orbite dei satelliti" (Celestial mechanics and the orbits of satellites) indicates. And as a physicist De Caro certainly knows astronomy, given that all physicists must study that subject as they learn about forces, orbits, etc. So I think that article can go in, but only for basic astronomical issues, not for meteorology where the authors have little background.

The situation with VanZandt is that as a Harvard trained physicist he is an expert on the astonomical issues he discusses. And the astronomical issues are not at all complicated at the conceptual level, and simply deal with the appearance of three planets at the same time. They would need lots of paper to compute by hand, but anyone can check them within an hour with a computer. It is pretty straightforward astronomy, but needs lots of paper if you do not have a compurter. So Van Zandt is fully qualified as an expert on that subject, and like all physics professors he had probably taught courses on that to undergraduates. This is not graduate level astronomy.

So I think the only section that should go back would be astronomy, with Matrricciani and Van Zandt confirming each other. The fact that they confirm each other adds to the reliability the items they discuss. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ratzinger, Pillari, article stability, etc.

One item that had been bothering me about this article was that many readers would have asked: what about Ratzinger? I had all but forgotten about Pillari but now that he weas mentioned I realized that he is a reliable source for mentioning that Ratzinger considered Valtorta's book "some type of story". I will add that soon. But Pillari is quite even-handed (or shall we say even-legged) in that he kicks the Valtorta supporters and critics an equal number of times. So he is a good source. But the items quoted from him now miss the thrust of his work, namely juridic analysis. He correctly points out that Danylak would have had no right to issue an imprimatur and that the letters of Ratzinger and Tettamanzi have no juridic impact given that the Holy Office and the Conf of Bishops never held formal meetings on the issue. That is what his research was about, not moter Teresa.

The mother Teresa item has no place in the Biblical analysis section because she was no Scripture Scholar. Her specialty was collecting donations to feed the hungry, etc. And the "read it" items means nothing beyong innuendo and speculation. These statements that some pope'd gardner saw him with Valtorta's book, etc. have no encyclopedic value, and make teh article appear promotional. If this is not deleted, I would be onliged to tag it as promo/advertising and go off to complain tio get it deleted. Please let us get rid of it without the La Tomatina we had on the Enigma book last week. But I am sure the outcome of the next Tomatina will be that the item is too promotional. So let us remain encyclopedic, keep the article simple and manageable. The continued increase in size of the support section will certainly lead to the deletion of half of it after a Tomatina once I go off to pursue the "too promotional" aspect.

I think the deletion of the Augustine Bea item sourced to the Enigma book was a good move. If another source is somehow found for it, it will need to go to the "criticism section" and say something like: Augustine Beas was initially supportive of Valtorta's work based on some sections he had read but later changed his position and Valtorta wrote to her friend mother Teresa Maria (not of Calcutta) that she was disappointed that Bea had retracted his support for her work. The second part can be sourced for sure. But the situation there is pretty complicated (teh raetraction wa sfor other specific reasons) and it is best to avoid Bea altogether. These things make the article confusing and subject to endless future debates. But the fact that Bea did the U-Turn tells us that we should never, ever trust the "Blog for the Brainless" (BFB) type websites that claim that type of support. They just don't know.

A similar situation exists with respect to the Gagnon/Melancon statement about the verbal imprimatur. I can easily add 3 well sourced paragraphs (some from Bouflet) that make that Gagnon argument vacuous. As he pointed out the fact that Pius XII sent people out to try to "get an imprimatur" from someone else means that he had not isued one himself, and had no intension of doing so. That is what Laurentin quote says too. Then any reader will know that just as someone who has just got married 3 days ago would not go and look for a wedding planner again, Pius XII had never issued an imprimatur. It would thus be better to get rid of the Gagnon item, rather my adding 3 paragraphs to refute it, and make the situation complicated.

Hopefully this article can become stable and non-promotional, the debates will end and we do not have to spend 15 hours a week maintainig it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is the right way. If the article is too short, it will be missing a lot of important information, and that's just an invitation for partial truths and confusing statements to be added later. But if you present both sides of controversial events, in the form of: "ABC, however, XYZ", then that shows a fuller picture of what actually happened, and reasonably presents the controversy, leaving a lot less to imagination and speculation. We don't have to present every single controversy, just the most salient ones.
On the issue of Mother Teresa. Yes, it probably doesn't belong in the Scriptural and theological section, but there wasn't an appropriate section to place it so I just placed in there for the time being. Perhaps a separate sub-section of "Famous people" or something similar. I think this information is useful however. Pillari actually includes the signed testimony of Fr. Maasburg in his paper. So this is not promotional, just fact. A lot of people would like to know of famous people (saints), who had a strong opinion of the work, so I think it's very relevant as far as support goes. I would like to include something by Father Pio as well, but I cannot find anything from a reliable source at this time.
Then there is the issue of statements made by Bishop Danylak, which were referenced in the book by Lavere. Here's the problem. Those statements by Danylak are his words. They are available on articles he self-published on his website. And according to WP policy, we CAN use the personal website of an important figure to reference his own words. These statements in Lavere's book were certainly obtained from Bishop Danylak's personal website (I don't see them anywhere else). So they were 1) self-published by Danylak, and 2) published in Lavere's book. The issue of RS of Lavere's book in this case is not as relevant, because we can verify for ourselves by consulting the original website of Danylak. I.e., we can't use Lavere for controversial facts, but we can use him for uncontroversial statements by Danylak. I feel it is important to include Danylak's statements in the article, and we can do that one of two ways, by citing Lavere, or by citing Danylak's personal website directly.
I know you don't want to link to a website as a source, but it IS acceptable WP policy in this case because it's Danylak's website and his own words. However, if you really don't want to cite the original website, I'm okay with that, provided the two Lavere citations for Danylak's uncontroversial statements can stand in it's place. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Arkenstrone, it is not a question of what I want, but the fact that you failed to get consensus on WP:RSN for either approach. On Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408 you attempted to get support for the inclusion of Danylak's website and failed. And you also failed to get support for the enigma book in a follow up case. So neither approach for using Danylak or Enigma can be used. End of story. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
WP policy trumps consensus every time. If there is some gray area regarding WP policy in any given situation, that's where consensus comes in: to interpret WP policy, not just vote yea/nea with no policy rationale. Remember, consensus is not about voting. This is important to understand. Otherwise a group of ill-intentioned people can work together to create nonsense articles based soley on "consensus" and divorced from WP policy. That is clearly not the intent.
For the record, Danylak has a doctorate in Canon and Civil law from Pontifical Lateran University, as well as a Licentiate of Sacred Theology from the Pontifical Urbaniania, which is the second of three ecclesiastical degrees in theology, between the Bacccalaurate and Doctorate. It grants the holder the right to teach in Catholic seminaries and schools of theology. Requirements for these degrees includes a thesis and dissertation, peer-reviewed by advisors and members of the examining committee (subject matter experts), and published on the University website or the University library.
Therefore, Danylak definitely meets the WP:SPS criteria for a subject matter expert on matters of Church doctrine (theology), faith and morals, as well as Canon and Civil Law. He is qualified to make statements regarding whether a given work conforms or does not conform to established Church doctrine, faith and morals.
This is the argument grounded in WP policy. If you have a counter argument grounded in WP policy, present it. Otherwise, Danylak's personal website is fair game even with the lack of any consensus.
The take-away for the Lavere debate indicated that he can't be used for controversial statements, but he can be used for his own words (obviously). And the takeway from your previous RSN about using information published by non-independent publishers (Valtortiano) was they can only be used for uncontroversial statements.
So, from the results above, we have: Lavere can be used for his own words or uncontroversial statements. And quoting Bishop Danylak (subject matter expert) in this case is uncontroversial because his words appear on his personal website and can be easily verified. Also, I didn't mention that Pillari also says that Danylak issued an endorsement of Valtorta's work (though it doesn't have any formal juridic weight, as for Ratzinger and Tettamanzi). I was offering you a chance to use Enigma instead due to your aversion for using a website. We can use Danylak's website and Pillari. Or we can use Lavere and Pillari. The choice is yours. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
No and no. Take a look at the Enigma discussion first about the take away, then we will move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that both policy and consensus are on the same side here, it just isn't your side. Also note that its actually consensus which does the trumping, consensus can change policy but policy can not change consensus (at least not directly). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"van Zandt is a domain expert"

@Arkenstrone: where are you seeing that van Zandt is an expert in religious literature or astronomy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually VanZandt's basic analysis of the conjunction has nothing to do with religious literature. It is simple, basic astronomy that could have been written by any traveler in any century. And the whole thing takes less than an hour to do on a computer, if you are familiar with basic astronomy. As for his expertise in astronomy, we can ask: "Is a professor of physics an expert in calculus"? But of course. Is he an expert in Euclidean geometry? But of course. The same applies to the basic astronomy that is used in VanZandt'a analysis. In his paper he says that most of the analysis he presented in unnecessary for those who have access to a computer. It just impossible to get a PhD in physics (and from Harvard in this case) and not know astronomy, astrophysics, etc. Van Zandt is fully qualified to write about this type basic astronomy, as he would be to write about calculus, or Euclidean geometry. And his work is collaborated by Matrriciani decades later. So the two together present a solid case, and a good source reference. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless Van Zandt has published in the field of astronomy they aren't a domain expert. Any lawyer is not a domain expert in political science simply because its study is generally required. A doctor is not a domain expert in chemistry even though they've studied it extensively. Note that 99% of the time the answer to the question "Is a professor of physics an expert in calculus" is going to be "no." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
So in that scenario, if a professor of physics states that in his opinion "2 + 2 = 4" that is only ok if he has published a paper that says 2 + 2 = 4? How about a statement about Euclidean geometry about the area of a square? Does he need to have published on that? There is a very good reason why an assistant professor in physics would never, ever publish on calculus, Euclidean geometry or orbital astroniomy. It would immediately reduce his chances of their getting tenure to zero, because he would have published on trivial subjects. To get tenure you need to publish on complicated subjects not trivia like the orbits of the planets or Euclidean geometry. And note that the astronomy used by VanZandt is just "orbital observations" about the planets. That is taught to undergraduartes in physics in the first six months of their study. The study of orbits goes back to Newton and Leinbinz and has been studied for centuries. It is understood by students before they enter the univesity. And after getting tenure, no professor will ever publish in trivia such as Euclidean geometry or orbital observations because it will reduce their stature and people will think they have nothing important to say. Van Zandt is more than qualified here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
If he's published in mathematics journals sure... But he isn't a subject matter expert on mathematics or the English language just because he uses them. Is religious literature also part of the general physics education? The author does have to be qualified in both fields to be used after all, even if he were an astronomer he wouldn't be qualified unless he was also published on religious literature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I meant domain expert in physics, with 68+ publications in technical journals and supervisor to 11 Ph.D. students. Astronomy is a sub-branch of physics and has the same core components as other physics sub-disciplines. Most universities combine physics and astronomy as one department. So, while van Zandt's Ph.D. specialization was molecular physics, his foundation is similar to other branches of physics, and he's more than qualified to do these types of basic astronomical calculations. @Yesterday's arguments are sound. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Arkenstrone, actually his PhD at Harvard was not on molecular items but on spin density. His thesis advisor Albert Overhauser wrote that the basic concept proposed by Van Zandt in that thesis in 1964 was experimentaly proven as correct 30 years later shortly before he died. So he was a pretty clever fellow. He got into molecular issues after he arrived at Purdue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Astronomy is not a sub-branch of physics, although the two are related. Its not a paper about physics, its a paper about about astronomy and religious literature... Neither subject one which Van Zandt is a subject matter expert in and he would need to be an expert in *both* fields for his opinion to be that of an experts. He never published in them, not even the paper in question... It never made it into a journal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
"Although astronomy is a sub-discipline of physics, it can also be considered ‘applied physics’, as it applies the scientific hypotheses and basic rules of physics to further our understanding of space."[9]
And according to two PhD's in astrophysics:
"Is astronomy a branch of physics? Yes. The terms “astronomy” and “astrophysics” are pretty much interchangeable, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know."[10]
Arkenstrone (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
van Zandt is not an astrophysicist, he has a completely different field of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No need to get lost in details, but Astro and physics are noth subfieds of Mathematical sciences and Van Zandt is certainly an expert in that. I have touched up the section with new refs to clarify. And by the way, note that although Matricciani is an engineering prof, De Caro is publshed in serious religious journals, e.g. see:

Fernando La Greca, Liberato De Caro, Nuovi studi sulla datazione della crocifissione nell’anno 34 e della nascita di Gesù il 25 dicembre dell’1 a.C. ANNALES THEOLOGICI, 2017
Fernando La Greca, Liberato De Caro, Approfondimenti sulla nascita di Gesù nell'1 a.c ANNALES THEOLOGICI, 2020

So we now have refs that confirm the same by other scholars. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Religion and literature are not subfields of Mathematical sciences, what qualifies Van Zandt as a subject matter expert in either of those categories? The De Caro pieces are a tangent and a rather weak one given the lack of independence of the journal from the Church, any publications in secular journals or just the in-house one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the religion?

Horse Eye, before anything else, I think you need to explain which part of Van Zandt's reasoning involves "religion". Obviously religion involves dogmas, prayers, repentence, belief in a divinity, etc. Where is any of that mentioned in Van Zandt's paper. I assume that you have carefully read that paper, and understand it given that you are commenting on it. And do you have a copy of Valtorta's book to refer to the approprite sections to understand the topic? Note that the sections Van Zandt uses are from the first edition version, and the new book you may be using would have slightly different section numbers. But that should be easy to figure out.

Now, to recap, Van Zandt's reasoning has three parts:

1. That the three planets in question appear together only on certain dates, just as solar eclipses only happen on certain dates. And these dates can be determined by a computer or by long computations on paper. There is zero religious context in this. No dogmas, no prayers, nothing.
2. Sections 357 and the section range to 592-609 (using new second edition section numbers) are too far apart to be in the same year. Both take place in the Spring, but the book mentions too many days and too many events for them to be the same year. Again, there is zero religious context in this. No dogmas, no prayers, nothing.
3. Moon phase observations in the section range 592-609 specify the dates for that when a computer is used. That is all. Again, there is zero religious context in this. No dogmas, no prayers, nothing.

So you need to explain why any of these 3 steps involve religion at all. There is zero religion in his reasoning, unless we consider computer usage a type of religion That has not happened yet, but give it a decade. So please explan yourself. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Its about The Poem of the Man-God, a religious work. This is a page about religious literature, not astronomy... Anything due for inclusion here would have to be about this particular work of religious literature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye, from your response I gather that you may have not carefully read Van Zandt's article, but accept the fact that it has no religius reasoning. Now at least we agree that Van Zandt's paper is non-religious. In fact he went out of his way to make sure that it was non-religious by avoiding any information from the New Testament. Although we have, in the past, agreed on various issues, on the issue of not being to include non-religious analysis in an article, we do not agree.

The first reason is that you have provided no policy that precludes the inclusion of "analytical reasoning" in any article. Indeed it is the task of an encyclopedia to to do and explore various aspects of the article topic. Secondly, the article already includes "non-religious analysis" by Bouflet in a botanical context. Just as Bouflet applied non-religious analysis to statements about Indian figs and vanilla, Van Zandt applied non-religious analysis. Both types of analysis must be included in the article for completeness. Hence I can not accept that this article (and indeed any artticle on any book) should exclude non-religious analysis.

One item that needs to be added to the article, which Van Zandt just assumed as obvious and did not mention, is that the book mentions no dates at all. Matricianni's paper includes that statement and should hence be mentioned along with Van Zandt, given that it is a key issue about the book in question. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

How can a paper about dating events in the life of Jesus Christ as reported in a work of religious literature be non-religious? Every part of that is religious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye, you are asking a question here "How can a paper ... be non-religious?" I assume you ask because you have not read and understood the paper. Please read and understand it, then present your argument. You presented no argument based on the contents of the paper. Time to read, then argue, as always. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I have read it, perhaps I have not understood it... To me the context is inherently religious. Let me ask this a different way... What scientific question does this paper seek to answer? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Whether or not the context is religious, is a paper coherently describing a method for dating the events within a narrative not worthy of inclusion on the page for the narrative itself? Would we not include a study on lunar eclipses as they relate to the timing of events in works of literature depicting eclipses if it was considered notable enough by other scholars to bear fruit on further research and inquiry? Paragon Deku (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Paragon Deku is correct in his approach. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Paragon Deku: this paper was never officially published, it was given a limited release by his friends following his death, we have nothing to suggest that it was considered notable enough by other scholars for any purpose whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye, Yes, you have probably not understood the intent of that paper. Just as Bouflet's work "made observations" about the contents of the book this paper does the same. Bouflet made observations about vannila etc. this paper makes observations about planets etc. The key issue is that it just relies on what each section says about the planets, the moon etc. not about teachings such as "be generous to the poor" etc. The way you know it is not religious is that if we totally, absolutely reverse all Judeo-Christian teachings the analyis in the paper does not change. Let us assume that the Ten Commandments were reversed to say: Thou shall tell at least 3 lies per day, Thou shall steal something every week, and Thou shall run after your best friend's wife as often as you can, etc. Does that affect the planet observations? Not at all. They will remain the same. The paper makes observations about the contents of the book just as Bouflet does at the botanical level. That is all. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Bouflet would appear to have the credentials to make observations about a work of religious mysticism. If they aren't then we can't use them either. You didn't answer the question: What scientific question does this paper seek to answer? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye, excuse me, exactly what is mystical about vanilla existing in first century Judea? Nothing, nothing at all. And Bouflet was not qualified to address vanilla in ancient settings, because he is a ""modern historian" and made an error on vanilla in an earlier version of his book, and a user corrected him. He says that in his book. May I suggest that you read Bouflet's book before commenting on it? Please do read books before commenting on them. The same would apply to Valtorta's book of course. Please do read it before discussing it. As for the "scientific question" I already addressed that by saying that VanZandt was just making observations, as many people do on various books. He made the observation that the sky elements described in the book determine dates for the sections in which they are mentioned. That is all. No one asked Van Zandt a "scientific question" to answer, he was just surprised that the moon phases, planets etc. all matched, just as Matricciani and De Caro were. That is all. In the meantime I will order a new keyboard for myself, just for the sake of this discussion. You may wish to do the same. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The Poem of the Man-God is work of Christian mysticism, written by Maria Valtorta (a Christian mystic). Van Zandt seems to be asking if the events in the life of Jesus portrayed in the book match a certain astronomical modeling software, is that correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye, actually Christian big shots such as Joseph Ratzinger and Dionigi Tettamanzi would firmy disagree with the first part of your characterization. As indicated by the title of the Jan 1960 article in the Osservatore Romano they hold that the book is just "a story" and there is nothing "mystical" about it. I would have thought you had realized that by now. I suggest you read Ernest Renan's book The Life of Jesus for comparison. Ratzinger and company see Valtorta's work as a literary work like Renan's with no mystical elemenst at all. And they hold that she was no mystic. Is that clear at last?

And once again, Van Zandt's analysis (also Mattriciani's) applies to the sky elements visible in the "sections of the book" and would remain the same if the book's contents were changed to be about the life of Herod Agrippa. So the dates derived apply to section numbers in the book, regardless of who was mentioned in the sections. Is that clear at last?

Once again, I would suggest that you do the unthinkable and read the book before commenting on it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

We categorize Valtorta as a mystic on her page, if that is something in dispute perhaps you want to open a discussion on the talk page for that article. She is a mystic whether people believer her or not. This book is not about Herod Agrippa, it is about the life of the founder of Christianity. Note that Van Zandt is not qualified to comment on literature, they have no expertise there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The Valtorta page has no source that says she is a mystic. Once again, that whole issue is open for debate. Your statement "She is a mystic whether people believer her or not" is incorrect. The correct statement would be "She claimed to be a mystic". But there are other ways of ending this trivial discussion, as you will see. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless you're taking the fringe position that there is such a thing as a "real" mystic what's the difference between her claiming to be a mystic and being a mystic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
General acceptance by the crowd that she belongs to, in this case Catholics. Bernadette Sabourious etc. are accepted by the Church in Rome, Valtorta is not. In the eternal words of you know who it depends on what is is. But anyway, this debate should end now, given my last edit. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, so what is a fake mystic in your opinion if not a mystic? Your last edit appears to be to expand the use of a MDPI journal so perhaps you should comment below? MDPI journals are not WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye, Yes, it is an interesting issue. And perhaps one day we can have that discussion over a drink, or three, in a bar somewhere. But discussing it here it would just involve personal opinions and we would run over WP:NOTFORUM. So that is the end of this subsection for me. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ In Response to Various Questions Regarding “The Poem of the Man-God”
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Poem_of_the_Man-God/Archive_1&oldid=1182258534"