Talk:True Life in God

Messages

This article is in need of sources - proper to the Wikipedia guidelines - for the content of the messages. The TLIG website says the messages are about ecumenicism and fixing the Easter day, while the EOC says the messages are heretical. As you might imagine, these conflicting views would confuse the average reader. I myself haven't been able to find any proper sources for the messages. So I need some help in this regard. Would simply quoting the books be proper, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct13 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Writing Style & RCC Sections

Thanks to whomever made the changes to the article!

I have added a skeptic's opinion to the Writing Style section, because otherwise the section would be left biased.

I have added the CDF's interaction with Vassula to the RCC section, because it is the Church's official position on TLIG.

Oct13 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

cdf-tlig.org

I deleted this part, because I suspect the website isn't up to Wikipedia standards:

After a request was made by Rydén in 2000 to the aforementioned congregation (the CDF), the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fath, Joseph Ratzinger, invited Rydén, in 2002, to answer five questions about her messages and its relation to Divine Revelation. Rydén sent her replies to the Congregation later that same year. The dialogue was concluded with a private audience between Rydén, Ratzinger and Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt who had first requested the dialogue in 1999. Ratzinger formally requested that Rydén publish the full correspondence between herself and the CDF in the published TLIG books. <reference>Dialogue between Vassula Ryden and the CDF - http://www.cdf-tlig.org</reference>

If anyone wants to prove me otherwise, feel free to. Thanks! Oct13 (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a more truthful statement from you would be that you deleted that insertion because its content rather conflicts with your views about Vassula and True Life in God. To remove that crucial information leaves the whole of the Roman Catholic response utterly misleading and biased. Sasanack (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless the site is in accord with Wikipedia guidelines, it is not to be used as reference. The tlig dialogue site seems self-referenced to me, which is not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines, so anything from the site can't be included in the article. Oct13 (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think its time for an administrator don't you.Sasanack (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oct13, I note how you deliberately omitted the supportive analysis of the Writings mentioned in the Vassula Ryden article that was done by some of the most reputable theologians in the world. This, combined with your removal of information of Rydens universally acknowledged dialogue with the CDF (in which Ratzinger himself gave Ryden authorization to publish this dialogue in her books) clearly indicates that neutrality is not your aim. You are deliberately inserting critical-only information, whilst omitting positive referenced information that you are fully aware of, and where possible, deleting any positive information.Arkatakor (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Time for an administrator. Oct13 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

POV in lead

The lead (which doesn't adhere to WP:LEAD in any case, is pov as it asserts as fact that Ryden has received messages from Jesus. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller! I'll change it. Oct13 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have this article as well as Ryden's bio?

It isn't substantially different from Ryden's biography. It appears to be a fork and I see no reason it should exist. If anyone disagrees (which I expect they will) and we can't get consensus then I'll formally propose a merge. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This article exists for the book "True Life in God". On one hand, I agree with you: If the biography article exists, this article should be merged with it, or at least deleted. On the other hand, I like book articles. But that's just my opinion. Oct13 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My view on this is that the page is best removed in its current form as it seems to be virtually impossible to add accurate information to it without people removing it for what are, in my opinion, totally spurious reasons. The page, as it stands, says virtually nothing about the book, 'True Life in God'.Sasanack (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dougweller. The information in this article can be merged with Ryden's bio. It's basically a duplicate as it now stands, and I don't think the book is notable enough for an independent article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems unanimous, so I've redirected it. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For further discussion, see:

Talk:Vassula Ryden#Article True Life in God redirected here. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)