Talk:Maria Valtorta

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

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

Recent heavy POV-pushing
I see you have been hard at work POV-pushing a narrative by various means.

1) adding unreliable WP:BLOGs and apologetic websites as sources:
 * valtorta.org
 * valtorta.org.au
 * mariavaltorta.com
 * maria-valtorta.net
 * Maria Valtorta Store
 * sacredheartofjesus.ca
 * bardstown.com
 * doclibs.org (a free webhost for a random document containing bold claims)
 * marysbalm.com.au
 * cathtruth.com
 * mariavaltortawebring.com
 * mariavaltorta.blogspot.com

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

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

Again, clearly explained.

3) violating WP:BURDEN by adding back unsourced content

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

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


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

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


 * Yes. The statement is: 1) false because at least two biographies have been written as referenced in WP:RSN and therefore Bouflet is not a reliable source on this issue (see WP:NOTFALSE), and 2) the statement is not relevant to the article content. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because the source is reliable. The existence of works by a militant publisher, and the original criticism by Wikipedia users of a source, is not enough to warrant deviating from the RS; WP:VNTIA, WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Reliably sourced.￼ Durifon (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Joachim Bouflet's comments are negligent in failing to take into account, in particular, the book "Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta" (Memories of women who knew Valtorta) by Albo Centoni ISBN 8879870408, the book "Una vita con Maria Valtorta" (A life with Maria Valtorta) ISBN 8879870440 in his book "Impostures Mystiques". In the interview he gave on 14 May 2023 to the newspaper Le Monde des Religions, J. Bouflet expressed himself as follows: "In my opinion, the real keys to discernment are provided by all mystical theology, from Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, Doctors of the Church. By emphasising humility, transparency, simplicity and obedience, these mystics, in my opinion, show a path that is the opposite of that taken by the forgers, who are only interested in their own interests". And yet Maria Valtorta demonstrated throughout her life the qualities of humility, transparency, simplicity, obedience and self-effacement. Her writings bear witness to this, as do the testimonies of those who knew her.--Dave Aime (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — Dave Aime (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

Other comments:

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

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

Dave Aime, regarding what Bouflet told some newspaper, I would not pay attention to that. He has no idea who Maria Valtorta was because he has not read all the books about her. What is important is what the "local bishop" says. From a religious angle, the statements by the local bishop are very important about anyone who has claimed private revelations or is beng processed for beatification. That is built into the structure of the evaluations. In this case, the local bishop is the Archbishop of Lucca Msgr Paolo Guilietti and he is totally sold on Valtorta, as can be seen in these two videos  . A translations of what he said is here in English. And other languages are available here. Now, what does Wiki policy say about youtube videos being used as WP:RS sources? I am not sure if there is a policy or not. And please, let no one immediately suggest that youtube is a "crazy militant" websit etc. @Ad Orientem, is there any policy about videos? Thanks.

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


 * Brevity is the soul of wit. I garuntee that no one in going to read your innane fringy ranting.2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RPA:
 * "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor."
 * Arkenstrone (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The derogatory bits are about content (the "innane fringy ranting"), there is nothing derogatory about an editor at all in there. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No, the source is reliable and the only arguments against its use are either personal disagreements with the source or personal religious convictions... Neither of which carry any weight in a discussion such as this one. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Horse Eye's Back Thanks for your interest in this consensus vote. However, I noticed that you have not contributed to the article or talk page discussions. Every other vote cast is from someone that is actively involved in discussions on the article's talk page in one language or another. This consensus vote is intended for active participants in these discussions. We may choose to open it up to a more formal RfC in the near future regarding impeachability of the source (reliability of Bouflet), given @Yesterday's observations above, but for now we are focusing on active participants in these discussions only. Have you been actively partipating in these dicussions on one of the article talk pages in another language perhaps? Arkenstrone (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, pure and utter bullshit. Any editor is free to participate in this discussion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right. Any editor is free to participate in this or any discussion. But you have not participated in this discussion up until now, and suddenly you appear to participate in a consensus vote for which you have not been involved in any previous discussions? May I ask the reason for your sudden interest? Also please be WP:CIVIL Arkenstrone (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is entirely civil, bullshit is the neutral and civil descriptor for what you just tried to pull. Just making things up and pretending like you can decide who does and does not participate in a conversation is frankly unbelievable. What is not civil is questioning why another editor would choose to participate in a discussion unless you have a suspicion of wrongdoing, which I assume you do not. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just making things up and pretending like you can decide who does and does not participate in a conversation is frankly unbelievable
 * You are strawmanning. No one is doing what you are saying. Anyone can participate. And that's the point. You have not participated in any previous discussion. Also, you didn't answer my question: why the interest in a consensus vote for an issue in which you have never particpated? Arkenstrone (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just below this you are pretending like IP editors can't participate in this conversation. I don't intend to answer your question. Why do you ask? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just below this you are pretending like IP editors can't participate in this conversation
 * False. It's the anonymous vote from a 2-week old IP account, that has not previously participated in any discussions that is concerning. Arkenstrone (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and you are pretending like that means they can't participate in this conversation... It doesn't matter that they're anonymous, it doesn't matter how old they are, and it doesn't matter whether they've previously participated in any related discussions. You are pretending like they can't participate. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No per HEB.2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid gaming the consensus process, no anonymous votes please. Also, this consensus vote is for those who have been actively participating in the discussions on the article talk page in one of the article's sister language pages. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't ban IP editors nor can you restrict a discussion to those who have been actively participating in the discussions on the article talk page in one of the article's sister language pages... I have unstruck the comment. If you try shenanigans like that again you will likely be blocked as a result. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that anonymous vote could come from anywhere, including someone that already voted and is wide open to gaming of the consensus process. It simply cannot stand. Whoever made it, can recast it non-anonymously. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * IP editing is allowed, they're just as valid as any other editor. What policy or guideline are you basing these absurd claims on? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid WP:SOCKPUPPET which is a Wikipedia policy:
 * On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.
 * Arkenstrone (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That account is not an identified sock puppet, its an IP editor in good standing with the community. There is no evidence that anyone is misusing multiple Wikipedia accounts and if there was the appropriate place would be at the relevant sock puppet investigation not here. Accusing someone of being a sock without evidence and without opening a case is considered a WP:PERSONALATTACK, don't do it again. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my previous comment regarding WP:SOCKPUPPET. Voting anonymously leaves things wide-open to distorting consensus. Also, that IP account was first used only 2 weeks ago. If they want to vote on issues, they should open an account and participate in discussions, just like everyone else. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Voting anonymously is 100% allowed. If they want to vote on issues they can just do so, just like everyone else. If you think they're a sock puppet open a WP:SPI, only after an account is blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet can you strike a comment. See WP:IP. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Fair enough. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Therefore, it appears we may have to RfC in order to either maintain or impeach Bouflet as a reliable source. A WP:RSN has already established that the two biographies written by first-hand witnesses and published by Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, while not an independent publisher, can be used, provided they are used with care and not to justify extraordinary claims, but only for routine biographical information. So it is futile to attack these two biographies and their publisher as "militant" etc. since we've already established they can be used subject to the above provisions.

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

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

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


 * Arkenstrone, as participant you are in no position to decide anything. Need to get an uninvolved admin to decide. And you seem to be counting votes. Does not work tht way as I said above. Some of the votes were telegrams with no rationale at all. Ask Ad Orientem for advice And wait before an unnecessary Rfc. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Arkenstrone, as participant you are in no position to decide anything. Need to get an uninvolved admin to decide.
 * I'm not deciding anything. I'm simply noting that a consensus on this issue is not forthcoming. An RfC is precisely the tool to use to help resolve a lack of consensus due to a disagreement on the reliability of a source, by opening it up to the broader community, which will likely include, quite a few admins.
 * And you seem to be counting votes.
 * What about what I just said in the summary would give you this idea? I'm simply noting that consensus is not forthcoming on this issue. But, based on the brief justifcation provided to each vote, that the issue can neatly can be viewed as Bouflet is a reliable source vs. unreliable source. So? We can go further into this to determine if Bouflet is indeed reliable or unreliable.
 * Some of the votes were telegrams with no rationale at all. Ask Ad Orientem for advice And wait before an unnecessary Rfc.
 * Yes, the only 'rationale' provided was that "Bouflet is RS." That's just a statement, not a rationale. No reasons are provided for why this is so. Therefore, one purpose of an RfC is to help establish rationale both for and against. @Ad Orientem already mentioned above:
 * "@Arkenstrone If you wish to impeach this source, I think you need to open a discussion at WP:RSN or alternatively an RfC as I suggested above."
 * Arkenstrone (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Arkenstone, I do not agree with your assessment, so we need an uninvolved admin to make a decision and then we will all agree with that. In my view, there were no specific reasons given for inclusion and there were significant resons given for deletion. And not one error was pointed out in my reasoning for deletion or Dave Aime's support for deletion. Hence deletion may be justified after admin review. That would avoid a 30 day long Rfc process. @Ad Orientem, is WP:Closure requests the apprpriate to seek closre? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine waiting for admin review, given the strong rationale provided for deletion vs. inclusion before embarking on any RfC. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to be significantly misrepresenting what was established in that RSN discussion in a way which strains WP:AGF to its very limit. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Horse eye, I have not commented on the RSN discussion in this discussion. And I can not figure out how Arkenstone has interpreted it. So you are jumping the gun on that one I think. I do not see any significant debate on the RSN discussion in the discussions above. So you should just ease off on that one, and let it stand for what it was. Anyway, I have requested a closure by an admin. Let us all just accept whatthe admin decides. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment wasn't directed at you (please check the indenting), sorry to have caused you distress. I don't understand what you mean by "So you should just ease off on that one, and let it stand for what it was." because its Arkenstrone and not me which is refusing to " let it stand for what it was" by saying this which are untrue about it. Surely we should not let things which are untrue stand? If you started the discussion and yet even you "can not figure out how Arkenstone has interpreted it" how is that not a problem? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Procedural questions
Hello! I saw this page on WP:CR, and I was going to provide a close, but I'm actually not sure what, procedurally, happened here, and I was hoping some editors might clarify. Pinging the users who participated:.

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

The discussion was placed under the RFCs section of WP:CR. But was there ever an RFC tag here? I looked at the edit history, and I was unable to find one. (If someone removed it, they did so while also adding a comment of their own, which seems unlikely.) I'd also note that this discussion started 7 days ago; RFCs generally run for 30 days unless discussion dies down or WP:SNOW is invoked. Even if this was an "other type of closing request" ... I'm not sure a close would be appropriate at this time. I've only superficially glanced at the !votes, but things seems fairly evenly split, numbers wise. Of course, consensus is not a vote, but I don't think I've seen an evenly split discussion closed after 7 days before. All this said, if everyone here wants a close, I'll provide one, but I want to make sure that is what everyone wants.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I concur. A close at this point is likely premature. That said, I made some comments farther up the the talk page that would make me reluctant to do anything adminny here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Its been about a week, we don't appear to have consensus and its not exactly a pressing issue so I don't see the harm of letting it go another week to see if anyone new weighs in. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe there was ever an RFC tag here. The idea was to see if we could arrive at local consensus first, doing an informal consensus vote among participants actively editing this article, and if that wasn't forthcoming, then do a formal RFC, opening it up to the broader community. Given this, how would you advise we proceed? Arkenstrone (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest—and again, I'm staying superficial here, but you all seem fairly far apart. I sort-of suspect an RFC might be forthcoming. If you were to do an rfc, I'd suggest doing it in a new section, and I'd also advise everyone try to focus on saying their points fairly concisely and not worry to much about replies. (Not calling anyone out—RFCBEFOREs often are long! But I also know that editors who see large blocks of text are going to be really hesitant to participate. And you can always link up to this section for additional background.) But of course it's really up to you all! You could also wait a little longer to see if discussion amongst yourselves leads to a compromise option that can obtain consensus.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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


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

Michael Freze Voices, Visions, and Apparitions
On inspection this does not appear to be a reliable source, the author does not appear to possess academic credentials and they don't appear notable so their opinion doesn't carry any weight. Can you explain why you think that this source is reliable? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The reliability score of Michael Freze is the same as Mitch Pacwa and the rest of the bystanders, namely 3 on a scale of 1 to 100. They are all clueless about the subject. They briefly look up some sources published by that "crazy militant publisher" we all know about summarize a couple of sentences and write it. They are just clueless because they have not studied the issues. They are all in teh same bucket. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this appears to be a problem... You appear knowledgable in this area, can you suggest some better sources? Preferably secular academic ones? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Let us accept the fact that there were very few people who knew Maria Valtorta and almost all that was published about her was by Michele and Emilio Pisani. Most of those who say things in the English language literature look up the books by that publisher. The person who has done the most research and has personally met the Mencarini sisters, etc. who knew Valtorta is Fr Ernesto Zucchini. A professor of theology. But he is an offcial Valtorta supporter, so he will be objected to. Ironically, the author with the "most knowledge" was Albo Centoni because he interviewed all the people who knew Valtorta, tape recorded the interviews and published the two books in question here. He was a small college professor, not a big university academic. The only recent "independent" author who researched it is Antonio Socci, but he became a supporter, so he will be objected to. Let us accept that this is a controversial subject and the usual WP:RS criteria will fail sources on all sides. In 5-7 years things may change, but for now, it is mostly an elephant in the village of the blind situation. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that looking for reliability of sources that are impeccable is unrealistic in most cases. The fact is RS exists on a continuum, and we often have to accept that sources are not impeccable, but only adequate. Otherwise we would end up having to delete probably more than 50% of Wikipedia articles. We're not seeking perfection, and things will change.
 * Just do it. Add the Pisani, Centoni, Zucchini, and Socci sources, for the purpose of supporting biographical information. So what if they are Valtorta supporters? Every author is going to have an opinion on Valtorta. That's not really relevant. If the author is providing useful biographical information, based on eye-witness testimony, that is important and relevant. We just have to be cautious not to include any references to extraordinary claims if the work is not independent. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On further inspection, you might be right. But the right way to handle this is by applying an label and then discussing it on the talk page instead of just deleting the source and/or content. Give other editors a chance to discuss and/or come up with better sources. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Arkenstrone, I would not add any of the books Pisani wrote because they are as self published as you can get. He owns the publisher. I also would not add Zucchini because he is too close to the project for promoting Valtorta and using him as a source will be a long discussion that will undoubtedly end in its deletion. I think Socci is 50/50 but he does not have anything that we could not get elsewhere. Adding him will just create debate with "no benefit" to the article. The only source I would add would be Centoni because he was an independent educator, did the interviews, taped them, and transcribed them. And we can get the biographical info we need from his work anyway. In fact we do not need that much biography anyway, all we need to say is: she was born on DateA and was injured on DateB. She was evacuated during the war, and that is it. Please do us all a favor and let us have a nice summer without fights and negative feelings about sources that buy us nothing. Trying to add all those sources will not buy anything for the article, but will create enough debate to fill up half of the Wikimedia disks. Let us use acouple of simple sources for biographical details, avoid controversial claims and have a nice and brief article. That is the way to have a good summer and a good article that will not create controversy next month. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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