Jump to content

Talk:Maria Valtorta/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Factual Accuracy

Regarding the factual accuracy box, please clarify exactly the items that you are disputing. As I read it, the article never said that the book has "permission" from the Church, but that the index that once prohibited the book was abolished. The debate as to what that means continues. As the article says:

Valtorta followers argue that this in effect nullified the suppression of 1959 since the Index no longer existed after 1965. Others view the abolition of the Index as not reversing the Church's opinion of the work.

The article never claims that the "Church" has given permission. At the moment it seems that it is anyone's guess what the Church position is unless someone manages to corner some Church official on a Rome street and question them. And I doubt if one would get an answer even then. There are a few Bishops and Cardinals that suppport the book and have provided imprimaturs, but the Holy See as a whole seems to want to keep quiet. After Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi's letter, the Church has remained silent, as the article said. If the Holy See wanted to, they could just type up a letter tomorrow and order everyone not to read the book - they have enough stationary anyway. They do not seem to want to do that.

If you have a reference to the contrary, please provide it. I would be interested in seeing it. I will be glad to remove or reword any specific items whose factual accuracy you are disputing. Else the factual accuracy box needs to be removed. Thank you History2007 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing more research on this and am realizing how controversial it is. Part of the controversy, though, appears to be that there is a lot of misinformation b.c. the Valtorta publishers are making exaggerated claims on their website that the Catholic Church disputes through their websites. And there is some confusion as to the initial papal reaction, which was not written. I'm compiling some research and have ordered a book through inter-library loan. There are very few books available that focus on Valtorta (none at my university, the largest library in the state), according to some keyword and subject searches I did. So give me a week or so to get that together. You will notice that in the article here, most of the body is not cited with specific citations, an obvious contradiction to Wikipedia general policy. Carinamc (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I will be glad to learn more about this topic as the discussion continues. The fact is that this "is" a controversial topic and the original "papal approval" was probably questioned by many people because a "papal ban" was placed on it by a 2nd Pope. You may also be interested that I realized the support for it may have come from the somewhat liberal Cardinal Augustin Bea who had the ear of Pope Pius XII so to speak, for he was the Pope's confessor. The opposition probably came from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani who was super conservative and who also banned Faustina Kowalska's work. Interestingly enough I later realized the two Cardinals were not exactly best friends and Cardinal Bea was the main obstacle that stopped Cardinal Ottaviani at Vatican II [1]. So it seems (but there is no proof I could find) that Cardinal Ottaviani waited for Pope Pius XII to die, then presented the next pope with a paper to sign to ban Valtorta.
But anyway, one point you make that is valid is that there need to be plenty more in text citations to make the article more Wikipedia friendly. But that just requires routine editing and once I have some free time I will do that. But the heart of the arguments will remain the same: The book was on the index, the index went away, the Holy See is now keeping quite and Valtorta's followers (including various Bishops) keep reading the book, although there are some people who are still angry about the book. There is really no way to dispute these basic and simple facts. It is just a question of presenting them with references.
However, there is one thing that is clear in all these debates. Valtorta's work is such that many people will read it with or without Church approval. In fact they were publishing and reading it while it was on the "forbidden index" decades ago, and they seem intent to keep reading it. I must say that personally, I found this very long book hard to put down once I started reading a few pages. It is a "very unusual" piece of text (the most unusual I have seen to date) and as a hardened scientist who questions everything, I have no explanation for why it is so hard to categorize it. In any case, I look forward to seeing your references. Please post them on this talk page, for it is on my watch list. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Horseshoes?

My edit about the numerous references to horseshoes was deleted, but I'm still pretty certain that it was a historical innacuracy of Valtorta to place them in the Holy Land in the first century. A reference to a mule's iron shoe by Catallus suggests that shod animals were known in Rome at least by the first century BC, however, from my rather brief research into the subject, there does not seem to be any literary or archaeological evidence whatsoever that animals were shod in the time and place Maria Valtorta's work is set. The reference in episode 326. to hot-shoeing appears to be unquestionably anachronistic, but I'd be grateful if a more knowledgable party could weigh in.

These are some of the episodes where shod animals are mentioned:

25. The Presentation of the Baptist in the Temple. St. Joseph's Passion, 102. Cure of Johanna of Chuza near Cana, 160. From Naphtali to Giscala. Meeting with Rabbi Gamaliel, 247. At Bethlehem in Galilee, 288. The Sabbath at Gerasa, 315. Jesus' Farewell to the Two Disciples, 326. Evangelizing at the Border of Phoenicia. and 330, The Cananean Mother

Horseshoes, not muleshoes, are explictly mentioned (not as shape comparisons to roads, etc.) in episodes 288. 326. and 330.

The archaeological collection at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem does not include a single animal shoe at all, and I haven't had much luck with some brief Google searches for archaeological sites in Israel turning up even one horseshoe or muleshoe. Josephus in his "War of the Jews" does not once mention horseshoes, for whatever that's worth. Considering the fact that shod animals are mentioned liberally (and literally) throughout The Poem Of The Man-God, it appears to be an anachronism. But again, I'd be very grateful if anybody more knowledgable about this area has any information about animal shoeing in Israel, so we can determine whether their numerous mentions in The Poem Of The Man-God is anachronistic or not. RugTimXII (talk) 020:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The good news here is that it appears that you have read the Poem. Congratulations on that - it is a long book. I will look further at the items you mentioned above by tomorrow, but you do have a technical "Wiki-problem" here. If any of the equestrian items you have consulted do not relate to Valtorta, then your statement will be WP:OR in any case because it will be your own reasoning. I am sorry but that is how Wikipedia works. One other side note to mention if you are looking at these issues is that in those days iron was a precious commodity and when a horse/mule died the iron was not left on it, but pulled if there, melted and re-used, so it would be hard to fin those in many cases. And by the way, the lack of evidence is no proof of non-existence. It may be that evidence will be found in 50 years, so there is an argument from silence therein as well. And as you well know, argument from silence has been repeatedly used against the Paulien Epistles, and been criticized in turn, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, episode 25 says that the donkey lost a shoe, but not that the shoe was nailed, etc. The same with episode 102. So again, we do have a WP:OR issue here. We can not debate that between us. And to be upfront, this is really nitpicking. If this is a major issue for the criticism of the Poem, then the critics must be really out of ammunition. Given the 5,000 pages of theology laden text is this an issue? Mule shoes....History2007 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the theology, though I think there is a lot of debate about that too. That's a shame about the WP:OR issue. I think if there are any historical inaccuracies in the poem they are probably important, especially since so many people think Jesus was sending Valtorta visions of these details. You're right about the argument from silence, but I'm not sure it means the argument shouldn't be taken into consideration. Thank you so much for your time and consideration on this subject. RugTimXII 20:15, 6 October 2012
You are welcome. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Injury year

The intro and Early Life sections, citing the same source, differ as to when she was struck on the head. Which is correct? -Rasd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Maria Valtorta

Cyberbot II has detected links on Maria Valtorta which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/petitions/congregation-actively-promote-the-work-of-maria-valtorta
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maria Valtorta. 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 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maria Valtorta. 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) 07:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Valtorta. 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) 06:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A weird part

In 20The Poem of the Man-Godod received the imprimatur of Bishop Danylak
 I have removed this weird part. If anyone can, please, try to restore the original meaning. I've also changed italics in all cases to correspond to this case, that is, The Poem of the Man-God (and not the Poem of the Man-God).--Adûnâi (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Necessary distinctions

This article can lead to a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on a few important points. 1) revelation ended with the Apostolic Age. Nothing that comes after that can be considered public revelation. 2) Those receiving locutions usually include ideas of their own mixed in with the genuinely inspired matter. It would be naive to accept all or nothing of the writings. 3) An imprimatur says that the material is not dangerous to faith or morals, not that it must be believed. Jzsj (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's newspaper

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

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

Carlo Fusco is the official postulant. Ms Tasciotti is the examiner in charge. So technically Valtorta can be called "Servant of God" but the article can not be edited to say that until some newspaper states that. I think Video evidence is probably not an acceptable as a WP:RS source, but I am not certain. But there is no rush to edit the article to that effect- As newspapers comeout later, that will happen. That is 100% certain. So please calm down and accept the inevitable, and please do not fight each other.

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

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

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

Index and Imprimatur

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

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

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

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

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

More importantly, Emilio Pisani, the publisher directly stated that the book never received one either from Pius XII or others.
Was he talking about an "official" written Imprimatur, or a verbal unofficial Imprimatur? How does that reconcile with the account of Fr. Berti, which related the words of Pope Pius XII to "publish the Work as it is"?
But please remember that we can NOT ever, ever trust what that Australian Valtorta website or Bardstown say.
I think Bardstown is a special case as I mentioned above in my response to Veverve. Specifically, it is administered by a Roman Catholic monk, hosts high-quality and well-referenced content, and received the Imprimatur of Bishop Roman Danyluk.[2] Arkenstrone (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still sanctioned or not

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

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

Proposal to end discussion on Danylak and Index

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

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

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

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

Have you guys read the Jan 1960 article?

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

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

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

Proposal to move most of Index discussion to Book article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect content

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

I object: Bouflet is a reliable source published by a very reliable publisher. He is a historian and a specialist of mystical phenomenon; he also worked for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. I think you did not understand Bouflet's argument: most of what everyone knows on 46 out of the 61 years of her life can only be found in this autobiography. Biographers only have this autobiography.
I suspect why Bouflet – if he knew about them – did not take those into account:
  • Una vita con Maria Valtorta. Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti by Albo Centoni and Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta: published in 1987 and 1998 (25 and 34 years after Valtorta's death!) by the militant Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, not a RS. Due to the age, the testimonies are very likely unreliable.
  • Il cielo in una stanza. Vita di Maria Valtorta by Don Ernesto Zucchini: published by Fede & Cultura, not a RS, and the author is POV as the president of the Fondazione Maria Valtorta de Viareggio. If it is a review, it does not add something new.
You seem to have a very strong POV on the matter.
Veverve (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The article does have plenty of incorrect content. The previous version (which was revision deleted) attempted to correct this by providing more factual historical information. For example, that only the first edition of The Poem was placed on The Index of Forbidden Books in 1959. Then after some back and forth by Fr. Berti and others, addressing the main concerns of the Holy Office, working with its Vice-Commissioner, Fr. Giraudo The Poem was removed from The Index in 1962. stated, "We have no objection to your publishing this 2nd Edition," concluding with: "We will see how the Work [the Poem] is welcomed." But no mention is made of that in this article, leading people to believe it is still banned, which it is not. I will add this information back into the article, with sources as soon as I get a chance. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The Poem was removed from The Index in 1962: nope, it never was removed. Again, this shows your POV. The Index was abolished, but the work was never removed from it, as notes the Conference of Bishops of France quoting an official CDF letter. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion and misunderstanding on both sides (that includes me).
According to Bishop Roman Danylak, the first Italian edition of The Poem was placed on The Index because it did not carry a nihil obstat and imprimatur. But several Bishops subsequently gave their nihil obstat and imprimatur to the writings in later years.
However, even prior to that, the second edition of The Poem, published in 1961, received verbal approval for publication from Fr. Giraudo Vice-Commissioner of the Holy Office:
Ecclesiastical Censure Withdrawn
In December of 1961, when the first volumes of the 10-volume edition had already gone out, Father Berti was summoned anew by the Holy Office, where he found an atmosphere of dialogue which, among other things, allowed him to relate the words of Pius XII of 1948, and to exhibit the favorable certifications of some authorities. Among these there were three consultors to the Holy Office itself : Father Augustine Bea, S.J. (who became a Cardinal), Msgr. Lattanzi, and Father Roschini. He was required by a report and some documentation to return to the Holy Office four more times in January of 1962, and was always able to deal with the Vice-Commissioner, Father Giraudo, a Dominican, and finally obtained a sentence which seemed a cautious approval: "We will see how the Work [The Poem] will be welcomed." [3]
So while you appear to be correct that the first edition of The Poem was not formally removed from The Index before The Index was abolished in 1965, the prohibition does not apply to later editions of The Poem. This seems to be where the confusion lies.
Also of note, quoting Bishop Roman Danylak:
The decree that abrogated the index of forbidden books, distinguishes between those books that were placed on the index because of their objectionable moral, theological and anti-ecclesial character, and other literature, as writings on private revelations or purported visions that were published without prior approval of ecclesiastical authorities. [4]
The Poem falls into the latter category.
Again quoting Bishop Danylak:
It is true that the first edition of the Poem of the Man God was placed on the index of the Roman Catholic Church. This index was scrapped by the authority of Pope Paul VI in 1965. As the authoritative explanation of the accompanying document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith explains, the old index may retain the moral, but not canonical, authority as a guide to Catholic readers. The documents of 1965/6 acknowledge that not every work that had been placed on the index was necessarily against morals and faith. [5]
Imprimature of Bishop Roman Danylak [6]
Imprimature of Archbishop Soosa Pakiam [7] Arkenstrone (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Arkenstrone: this shows you have no idea what a reliable source is (despite receiving a formal warning at your talk page!). I give you an official Catholic statement, which says that the Poem as a whole is indeed considered to have been on the Index according to the CDF prefect. You answer by sending me a random militant WP:BLOG making claims and hosting alleged scans and claiming to host writings of a deceased bishop and an university professor.
The whole "the Church approved of the work verbally believe me, but they administratively and officialy condemned it later" has no basis, no reliable source mentions it as an established fact.
The decree putting the work on the Index does not mention why it was put on the Index. But the article in the Osservatore Romano supports the idea that it was for dotrinal reasons.
You really think the Index only concerned hyper-specific editions of the same work? That simply changing publisher made the whole things moot? Veverve (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Let's purse this in the spirit of honest inquiry and debate. Note, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, regarding the first edition of The Poem being placed on the Index. I just wish to illustrate a point regarding WP:RS.
You provided a link to a document hosted on the website of a Diocese in France: Areche, Diocese de Viviers. The diocese is led by Bishop Jean-Louis Balsa, Bishop of Viviers, according to the information on the website.
Now, why is information contained on this website RS, and information contained on the website of Bishop Roman Danylak [8], not RS? What if the article referenced on Bishop Danylak's website was previously published?
A separate point: are official documents hosted on a website dedicated to hosting historical documents of this type RS? And what if those official documents are scans of originals, complete with signatures and seals?
At some point, if the author is reliable (an expert, a Bishop in this case, or a website that has received the official Imprimatur of a high-ranking Church official), or the material is hosted on a website that is administered by such an individual (e.g. a Bishop and his supporting clergy), it stands to reason that we can presume the material to be reliable, or at least reliable enough, unless there is a compelling reason to presume the contrary.
If there is any doubt, there can always be an examination of that material in order to confirm whether the works hosted are indeed authentic. In the above scenarios, if you have a legitimate concern that material could be a forgery, then the onus is on you to prove it. In our liberal western democracies, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, we always presume innocence until guilt is established.
@Arkenstrone: this shows you have no idea what a reliable source is (despite receiving a formal warning at your talk page!). I give you an official Catholic statement, which says that the Poem as a whole is indeed considered to have been on the Index according to the CDF prefect.
I don't agree that bardstown.com/~brchrys is a random militant blog. Here's why. The website is administered by a Catholic Monk by the name of Bro. Chrysostom. That website was specifically praised and recommended by Bishop Roman Danylak, and given his official Imprimatur for the high quality and well-referenced articles that it hosts:[9]
"To introduce those who may not have heard of Maria Valtorta I include a brief historical and biographical introduction to Maria, excerpted from an introduction by Bro. Chrysostom, Trappist monk: Maria Valtorta and her epic narrative The Poem of the Man – God. I recommend the website of Bro. Chrysostom and the numerous articles that he has included for everyone, as an introduction to her writings and to the many problematic issues associated with the name, work and mission of Valtorta."
And[10]
"[...] The above is a somewhat lengthy introduction to my original intent: to present a letter of commendation, a Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur and a testimonial to this website of a Catholic monk on the writings of Maria Valtorta…"
You really think the Index only concerned hyper-specific editions of the same work? That simply changing publisher made the whole things moot?
Not changing publisher but because those involved (first-hand witnesses) explained the reason: anonymous authorship, and ambiguous passages not having theological annotations. After those issues were addressed in the second edition, the Holy Office no longer sanctioned the Work. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Books by author, and about author

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

What the article needs (no rush, let us say six months) is to gradually add info about "people she knew" and how she interacted with them. Her autobio mentions "Marta Diciotti" who wrote a book about her and that name must be among the people she knew. And per WP:ABOUTSELF whatever Maria wrote about Marta can be added. Also about Migliorini. Information about Marta can then be added via WP:ABOUTSELF from the book that she wrote. All within Wiki policy. I do not have time for this, and I think soon ChatGPT will give users this info anyway, but adding it here is ok, if someone wants to do it.

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

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

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

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

4. When did she sign a contract? 1952.

5. When did she die? 1961.

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

I do not have a physical version, so I cannot add a page number. What Bouflet wrote is what I transcribed. Veverve (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
My Kindle version has page numbers. You must have a preprint. Anyway, I will try to look through in a few days. No big deal on that statement. As we gradually add her other books, the picture will emerge. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not have a preprint. E-book pages numbers are not the same as pages in the printed book. This is why in the chapter parameter I have added enough details for anyone to find the section.
On my e-book reader, this information is p. 40. Veverve (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Valtorta/Archive_1&oldid=1224978519"