Talk:Vassula Rydén/Archive 1

Outrageously biased
The article is outrageously biased. It states a number of unverifiable claims about divine revelation as facts, and consistently fails to provide alternative accounts of Ryden's stories. It should be fully rewritten by a competent, neutral editor. Taragüí @ 18:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur, if you read the documents from the Vatican, there can be no doubt that the writings ARE NOT private relevation (from Heavan) but personal considerations of Mrs Ryder. It is implied that, like Fatima and Lourdes, the writings are on the same level.  This is blatently misleading, because Fatima and Lourdes ARE private relevations, recognised by the church, without warnings from the Vatican, and Mrs Ryder's writings are only personal consideration, with warnings from the vatican. See  for texts.  Therefor I will correct the text.Stijn Calle 13:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does making "prophetic" predictions automatically give someone notability? How many predictions did she make that didn't come true? This article has problems. Like this blatantly biased statement, "Vassula has recorded many prophetic messages, some already fulfilled and others yet to unfold." This is ridiculous and implies that she has some kind of mystical power, a theme found throughout the article. And regarding notability, almost all the references to her writings are from religious organizations, her own website, or clergy with very few sources in the non-religious media. I think that this article needs to be heavily edited and unsubstantiated, biased claims of prophecy and especially the section on "supernatural phenomena" removed. The sections on her work with other churches and the United Nations, and the controversy with the Catholic Church is fine and well sourced, but the rest is questionable. I may be out of bounds, I don't edit a lot here. ch473 14:40, 22 August 2010 (CST)


 * ch473 you are spot on. Glad you are being skeptical.  I don't have the time to redo this page but welcome your efforts.  As you are new if what you do still needs cleanup one of the other editors can help out.  Please make a start.  And ignore anyone that says that you are NOT allowed to edit her site.  The person who wrote that is out-of-bounds. Sgerbic (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Believer
As someone who trusts in the messages of Vassula Ryden, and as a religious person in general, I take heinous offence at phrases like "an entity identifying itself as 'Jesus'". This page just needs a small note at the top saying that nothing can be proven, and that the truth of everything stated is subject to the readers opinion.

Rewritten
Article rewritten. / br. J 6 Feb. 2006

Although Mrs. Ryden has a few Roman Catholic priests who seem to believe that Jesus is the one communicating with her mainly because the messages seem to be theologicaly sound, the story of a lay woman getting messages from something claiming to be Jesus has happened before Mrs. Helen Schucman is just one example. She claimed to have been given messages from Jesus and produced the "new gospel" which corrected all the errors in the Authentic One!

Since it appears that the real theologians at the Vatican have nixed the possibility that Jesus "this time" is really communicating through this woman, it seems that demons would most likely be responsible. They like to lie about who they are. They love to pretend to be good beings suggesting that they are Jesus or angels of Heaven. Look at the stupid demon who began talking to Joseph Smith. Smith was arrested for divining which is an occultic activity. Then when the supposed angel Mormoni began talking to him he believed that it was a Heavenly angel. What he didn't seem to understand is that someone who messes around with the occult is not going to get Heavenly visiters but demonic ones! I mean Mormoni? Please!

To the person who "trusts" the messages of Mrs. Ryden why not just read the real Bibles and get your messages from them instead of another Christian who seems to be loosing her way by one of Satan's monkeys? Carr 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Estas equivocado Carr, los mensajes de Vassula son auteticos mensajes Cristianos, conformes con la Biblia y dictados por Jesucristo, es un error pensar que esto es obra de Belzebu.

Dios Trinitario te ilumine! 201.242.231.31 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow the Rules
Anyone who edits this article is required to follow the rules of wikipedia on biographies of living persons which you will see at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

If anyone tries to re-modify this article, putting author-opinionated comments such as stating Vassula's writings not being of divine origin etc, this WILL be taken on to the next level and we will get an independent 3rd party to intervene based on the abovementioned guidelines.

As for this comment:

''I concur, if you read the documents from the Vatican, there can be no doubt that the writings ARE NOT private relevation (from Heavan) but personal considerations of Mrs Ryder. It is implied that, like Fatima and Lourdes, the writings are on the same level.''

While you are entitled to your own opinions and free to quote the Vatican on this and put that quotation in the article, do NOT attempt violate wiki's guidelines by inserting YOUR opinion on Vassula or YOUR opinion on the authenticity of her works in the article. This is a clear violation of the rules and any further attempts to do this will be taken to a higher level and we will make sure to have the article removed completely and permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like getting an account to make the needed changes, but since she has been excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it is incorrect to identify her religion as 'Greek Orthodox'. I hope someone will make this necessary change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.240.7 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Due to the controversy that Ryden generates, it is only right to state that this article should not be editable by people who don't have an account. Now on to your point; Ryden has not been excommunicated from the orthodox church.  For more details as to why she has not been excommunicated, you can scroll down to the "Excommunication of Vassula Ryden from Orthodox Church" topic in this page.


 * I am happy that wikipedia is a place in which provides a neutral ground to cover such topics, as any controversial statement has to be backed up by reliable sources. In this case the URL source of this false claim of Ryden's excommunication was usable against the person who inserted it, as it actually contained the original ancient greek text in which the annoucement was made.

'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncited?
Siamsiocht (talk | contribs) (Removal of uncited material) per your deletion of my edit. You are giving your opinion here. "She receives no personal royalties, fees or benefit for her efforts.[3][4][5]" You know darn well that she is getting something out of it. Either remove the entire sentence or leave my edit alone. "Other than personal recognition from devoted fans, she receives no personal royalties, fees or benefit for her effort". SGerbic (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Been more than 2 months. I'm removing the non-NPOV statement about her "doing this for free" line. Does she SELL her books or not? Amazon has quite a few books listed of hers for sale, wonder if they know they are supposed to be for free? I'm willing to go through arbitration with Wikipedia senior editors if you try to put it back into her page. Sgerbic (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientific and Theological analysis
Cited as an “objective look” at topic, Joe Nickel’s text demonstrates that he as an author of referenced article has not met Ryden, nor carried out scientific tests (to observe/investigate phenomenon on which author writes) to confirm/refute his ‘suspicions’ in what is described (in existing Vassula Ryden article text) as “an objective look into these ‘purported messages’……”. Thus his conclusion demonstrates Experimenter’s bias.

Furthermore use of conjecture words: “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion” – violates Wikipedia policy on verifiablity / citing reliable sources / NPOV especially when the subject is a living person.WP:BLPREMOVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rn2hearts (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to disagree. Nickel has written an investigative criticism of Vassula's "spiritual writings" and it warrants being included in the page.  If criticism can only be waged against someone they have "met" then I'm speechless.  Nickel has reviewed her writings and has stated his Opinion.  He is an expert, is notable, and the citation is from a source that has been recognized as a reputable source.  I am reinserting the citation.  Sgerbic (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You may feel free to disagree with Rn2hearts all you want, however in doing so you are arguing against wikipedia guidelines. These are not subject to negotiation. You would do well to re-read the text Rn2hearts inserted, I will bold it since you have clearly chosen to overlook it. use of conjecture words: “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion” – violates Wikipedia policy on verifiablity / citing reliable sources / NPOV especially when the subject is a living person.

I am grateful that Rn2hearts took the time to clarify this.

Hope this helps. If it does not and this text or the likes of it are re-inserted, administrators will be contacted and they will side with wikipedia policy regarding your usage of conjecture words. At that point you can feel free to continue to "disagree" with them all you want.


 * Actually I think I would like this reviewed by an admin. If I am quoting an article from a reputable professional investigator whose giving his opinion in a reliable source then I think the edit stands.  Sorry I do not know who I'm responding to as your last response was unsigned.  The entire article is flagged for problems and I think a neutral admin or other editors who are not interested in this topic will be able to sort this out.  Maybe even be able to give the article a look and see where they think all the problems of neutrality exists. Sgerbic (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked for assistance here. I hope I stated the case against my edit fairly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Need_help_with_WP_page_for_Vassula_Ryden Sgerbic (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we sorted this there and I've replaced the Joe Nickell stuff. I removed the weasel word 'however' and some scare quotes. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Usage of self published websites
The usage of poorly sourced material as reference material, namely those deriving from self published websites, is prohibited under the wikipedia guidelines.

Here is a quick quote that summarizes what can be read in the aforementioned "wikipedia guidelines" link:

''Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources ''

Examples of self published websites, that should NOT be used under any circumstances for this article include but are not limited to:

cafarus.ch

infovassula.ch

defending-vassula.org

ourladyswarriors.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add something to the article, but I went back to this section of the Talk Page and saw the website I wished to reference was on the bad list. Here is what I wanted to add:


 * According to Maria Pio, a critic of Vassula, http://www.infovassula.ch the Patriarch's document is "not a decree of excommunication of Ms. Ryden". Formal Retraction. The Patriarchate's document is not a decree of excommunication of Mrs. Ryden. Between March 24 and April 14, 2011 this website reported an information – proved erroneous – spread by several Orthodox websites, who referred to the document of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople dated March 16, 2011 as a formal excommunication of Mrs Ryden. On April 14, 2011 I came across arguments of a canonical nature that brought into question the exactitude of that interpretation, since the document did not seem to be the result of the canonical procedure necessary for a formal excommunication. I deeply regretted this mistake, because my intention is always to inform correctly. Maria Laura Pio – February 27, 2012.


 * I'm adding this here for future reference, in case any users are unsure if it belongs on the article. Oct13 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Excommunication" of Vassula Ryden from Orthodox Church
Contrary to what a lot of people believe, Ryden has not been excommunicated from the orthodox church. The original reference that was used to back up this false claim:


 * http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/03/announcement-on-vassula-ryden-by.html


 * offered an incorrect translation of the original ancient Greek (yes they still use ancient Greek to make their announcements) text which is also displayed in the page. In that text the word "αποδοκιμάζω" means disapproved, not reject.  Thus the real translation of the sentence reads as follows "The Mother Church disapproves the misguided and superficial novel teachings of Vassiliki Paraskevi Pentaki - Ryden".

Church Canon Law of which all clergy (regardless of rank) of all Church denominations must abide by, dictate that for any person to be excommunicated from their respective Church, the following process must be followed:


 * 1. There must be dialogue between the member of the church who is said to have committed an offensive act against another or against the Church and there must be personal discussion. In this instance between a senior Prelate of the Holy Orthodox Church and Ryden. No such dialogue has ever taken place.


 * 2. If dialogue fails to result in reconciliation or resolution of the difficulty then a further dialogue must occur, this time involving other members of the Church community acting as witnesses or as mediators.  (Again no such dialoge has ever taken place).


 * 3. If all this fails then the matter must be referred to the entire local Church which has the power to dismiss the offender. Typically in modern times this final stage takes the form of a trial or formal hearing, usually in the case of the Holy Orthodox Church in a Bishop's tribunal.


 * Given its Divine authority, this process cannot be disregarded and indeed has been carried into the Canons of the Church since ancient times.


 * As a general principle the Canon law of the Church, both Western and Eastern, does not punish the external violation of a law or Canon unless it is clearly imputable and even then only when the special gravilty of the violation requires punishment. There is also since mediaevel times been a presumption of innocence until proven guilty by due and proper process.The good name of either a cleric or a member of the laity is a considerable and indeed fundamental importance in the administration of the Holy Church. The Canonical procedures have always envisaged a standard of proof, subject to a test of ' moral certainty' and that can only be achieved by an initial stage of preliminary investigation followed by the giving of evidence, particularly from the accused, and a final stage when after due consideration, a decision is made by the ecclesiastical judges.

'The disturbing trend is that editors in this article are wildly spreading this false rumor of Ryden's excommunication from the Orthodox Church. They post material without first verifying the accuracy of the content, including translation, and conducting thorough research, such as consulting Canon Law and other authoritative sources. Furthermore, there has been an extensive usage of self published websites as reference material to back up this false claim, the usage of which is specifically forbidden in the wikipedia guidelines (see the Usage of self published websites topic in this talk page). All this has resulted in damaging propaganda not only about Ryden’s work but also against the living person herself.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Excommunication and Anathema
Excommunication is the penance of exclusion from the Eucharist and from ecclesiastical communion. Anathema is the penance of expulsion from the Eastern Orthodox Church.

When the Patriarch of Constantinople stated "Hence, we call upon the proponents of these unacceptable innovations and the supporters who maintain them, who henceforth are not admitted to ecclesiastical communion,..." he declared the proponents and supporters of True Life in God excommunicated.

Whether or not Vassula is excommunicated depends on whether or not she propones or supports True Life in God. I await further development on the matter.

Oct13 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are confused on this matter.

1.   The sources of Greek Orthodox Canon Law refer to Anathema as the major Excommunication consisting in the total and continual expulsion of the guilty person from the Church. However, in the Sacrament of Penance or Confession a Bishop may impose an Act of Penance known as "Epitimina", as a penalty and the Sacred Canons prescribe various acts of Penance including fasting, acts of Charity, the reading of Spiritual books, Pilgrimages and temporary exclusion from the Holy Eucharist (which is sometimes referred to as minor or lesser Excommunication). These Penances are imposed for sins on those making their Confession where there is genuine Repentance expressed through the mystery of Repentance and Confession. Note that exclusion from the Eucharist for a temporary period is not equivalent to exclusion from Ecclesiastical Communion with the Church, which is of course a critical component of Anathema, the major Excommunication. 2.   The penalties can only be imposed in accordance with the Sacred Canons. So Penances are administered through the Sacrament of Confession after due expression of repentance by the Penitent. Anathema, the severest of all punishments known to the Church,can only be imposed in accordance with the teaching of Our Lord as explained in the 18th Chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, (verses 15 to 17) and it is of course the Ecclesiastical Courts which judge clergy upon violations of their priestly duties and their lives in general, and the laity in regard to transgressions against the Faith. There is no history of Ryden or any Orthodox member of TLIG confessing sins to a Bishop during the Sacrament of Confession and expressing repentance so as to attract any Penance, including exclusion from the Eucharist. There is no history of Ryden or any of the members of TLIG being summoned to an Episcopal Court and charged with Transgressions against the Faith. It follows that the statement of the Patriach cannot be a Decree of Excommunication (whether major or minor). The statement calls upon Ryden and her followers to discontinue the dissemination of the TLIG messages and to renounce their teachings in order to avoid the appropriate sanctions under the Holy Canons. 3.   Unless and until due judicial process is established and concluded by the Church, any public comments stating or implying that Ryden and faithful Orthodox members of TLIG have been excommunicated by the Holy Orthodox Church are wholly untrue, and therefore defamatory. Indeed, it is absurd to suggest that, in breach of the procedures laid down by the Holy Canons, a large and disparate group of Orthodox Faithful, none of whom, except Ryden, have been named and identified, can be Excommunicated from the Church by a statement which does not even use the word "Excommunication". In any event, it is a fact that Ryden and all of her Orthodox followers have continued fully to participate in the Sacramental life of the Holy Orthodox Church. 4.   For those who wish to inform themselves, the Orthodox Research Institute publishes a series known as the Orthodox Theological Library which includes a volume devoted to an overview of Orthodox Canon Law by Professor Dr. Panteleimon Rodopoulos, who is a Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanack (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have given no citation for your information. Hence, what I said still stands: The Patriarch has excommunicated those who support and propose True Life in God, and if Vassuala does the same, than she is also excommunicated. Oct13 (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to refer to the Sasanack's paragraph number 4 for the citations.


 * While you do that you can also feel free to consider this:


 * 1) the collection of sacred canons known as The Pedalion, derived from the Fathers of the Early Church, and the great Ecumenical Councils- Synods.
 * 2) Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 14 of the Council of Carthage (418 AD) which requires all ecclesiastical disputes to be heard in the eccelesiastical Tribunal of the Bishop or Metropolitan to whom the party or parties is subject and canon 28 of the same Council which prevents excommunication pending the outcome of formal charges.
 * 3) And of course Gospel of St Matthew 18, 15-17, the foundation of the procedural laws requiring judicial process before excommunication can be imposed.
 * 4) The fact that the Patriarch has not excommunicated anybody. I invite you to name one member of TLIG who has been excommunicated. The Church cannot impose anathema on nameless people! Arkatakor (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I still see no citations. Just a reference to a website. Oct13 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe its time you read it from Rydens fiercest critic herself. Arkatakor (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This is the citation I was looking for. Oct13 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
Sections of this article appears to be massively weighted toward the fringe opinions and extraordinary 'scientific' claims made by non-independent sources, i.e. believers in Ryden's "supernatural" powers. These need to be replaced by material from 3rd party sources that are intellectually independent of the subject and the beliefs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Miracles
The section on miracles appears to be based entirely on primary sources. Independent secondary sources must be obtained to establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If due weight is not established I will remove the relevant sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks IRWolfie! I've been trying to find independent sources. No luck so far. Oct13 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged prophecy
I'm copying some discussion here from another editor's talk page: if either of the editor's mind, they are free to remove it:


 * Well, I'm sorry if my use of the word 'vandalism' was inappropriate. Surely I don't need to find a source for the reaction to the material.  I am not particularly interested in the reaction.  I am simply trying to put the information of the message about the Towers, on to the section about prophecy.  People can then make their own judgement.  But they cannot make any judgement of I am not allowed to put the information in the article!  I am genuinely puzzled by all this.  Isn't Wikipedia about the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanack (talk • contribs)


 * @Dougweller; Ryden, being the controversial figure that she is, is also regarded by some as a visionary which can also mean prophet. Visonaries (or prophets) often record messages which some will interpret as prophecy, others will scoff at.  The choice for them to do that is entirely theirs BUT they should at least be given a chance to read it and determine for themselves. Arkatakor (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is slightly complicated. First I'll have to note that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" so yes, you would need to find a source for the reaction of readers. See WP:RS for the criteria for such sources, which don't include blogs, a lot of websites, etc.


 * Another relevant part of policy that relates to this is WP:UNDUE. In other words, one source would probably not show that this is significant (as the word is used in our policy).


 * If you want to discuss this further the talk page might be a better venue. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The significance of a passage is soley determined by reliable sources. You have made a subjective judgement for inclusion based on your reading of a primary source, this is original research on your part. If many consider her a mystic or visionary with regard to this then it is to be expected that there should exist many reliable independent sources such as secondary sources discussing it (thus establishing due weight). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly, there is so much negativity to mystical matters in general, and to Vassula in particular, that the self evident significance of the amazing date (10 years to the day before the 9/11 events) of Vassula's message (The earth will shiver and shake and every evil built into Towers will collapse into a heap of rubble and be buried in the dust of sin!) is scoffed at or 'brushed out' as has happened here on Wikipedia. No neutral person could dismiss the significance of the date of the message. Sasanack (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If no neutral person could dismiss the significance then it should be quite easy to find reliable independent sources to back up the assertion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is actually quite difficult to get "reliable independent sources" (as defined by who?) to waste their time confirming what is patently self evident. The 'coincidence' of the dates speak for themselves.  Sasanack (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable independent sources as defined by wikipedia's sourcing policy. I suggest you consult WP:RS and specifically WP:BLPSOURCES: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. This is policy not guidelines, it is not optional. Original research is not acceptable on wikipedia and particularly not in a BLP article. See the top of this article talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now found a reference to this matter which I hope will with be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. As I am not an expert in making Wikipedia edits I hope someone will gently advise me if I do anything wrong when I try to insert the reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanack (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but I've removed it. As you say, you aren't familiar with our policies If you read WP:RS it says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." (read the rest also please so you see the context). Neither the author or Seraphim Press Belfast meet these criteria so far as I can see. In fact, I can't see any evidence that it isn't actually self-published. If you think it does meet these criteria, you can ask at WP:RSN which is our noticeboard where we discuss queries over sources. It takes time to figure this all out. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I give up! You seem to me to be applying Wikipedia policy in a rather extreme way.  I rather think Wikipedia would not be the success it is if this kind of treatment was given to everything posted in it.  The 'contentious' material I have been trying to add is actually not contentious at all and to apply this kind treatment to it is very disappointing to see.  But as I say, I give up.  I'm sure you mean well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanack (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope I do. We have to have some thresholds for sources, and I really don't think this meets these. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Finding material to backup this publication is irrelevant. That paragraph simply was about stating highlighted facts which are anything but contentious or disputed.  I have listed these facts in numerical order for your perusal.


 * On September the 11th, 1991 Ryden wrote down some paragraphs in which the wording included the following: "The earth will shiver and shake and every evil built into Towers will collapse into a heap of rubble and be buried in the dust of sin!"
 * The message speaks of towers (twin towers anyone?) collapsing and dust which were precisely 2 things the world saw plenty of during the unfortunate 9/11 events.
 * The printed version of the book containing this message was published a year or two later (approx 1992 or 1993). Thus its been in circulation a good 8 years or more before the unfortunate 9/11 events. This fact is not disputed by anyone.
 * When the book was printed approximately 19-20 years ago, it had (and of course still has) the September 11th 1991 date attached to this very message, so Ryden could not have possibly changed the date attributed to this message post September 11, 2001 just in order to cater for those unfortunate events. Let me say this again: the book was printed in the early 90's with the aforementioned message attached to the date: September 11, 1991.


 * None of the aforementioned 4 facts can be disputed because they are barebone facts, just like saying Paris is the capital of France.


 * Another point to consider is that, as ridiculous as it may sound to some, Ryden is regarded by some as a visionnary which is synonymous to being a prophet. Prophets typically tend to have mentions of alleged prophecies in their articles.  Not having an alleged prophecy section in an alleged prophets article is like having an Albert Einstien article without a Theory of Relativity section.  Thus this section is extremely relevant to the article.


 * I realize this has been rather long so I will now conclude by saying that personally I cannot help but sense anti-religious prejudice behind your motivation to keep this out. There is, as Saasnack has mentioned, an overzealous approach being taken to keep out this factual material which in my opinion is anything but contentious.  This applies to both you and IRWolfie-, (I could not help but notice on IRWolfie-'s page the banner with the word "God" and a red strike going thru that word with an annotation saying "This user does not believe in myths or superstitions").


 * I am hopeful that we can still come up with some sort of compromise by rewording the material such that it would be acceptable to keep it in the article. Let me know what you think.  Arkatakor (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside, my lack of belief in superstitions and myths does not affect my editing, I remove poorly sourced contentious material wherever I find it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding text to the article that says something like, "X believes that a paragraph written by Ryden in 1991 prophesied the 9/11 attacks" is not out of the question -- however we need sources for this text that conform to the encylopedia's policies in order to verify that it's a notable opinion (WP:OR,WP:RS), and it comes from a reliable secondary source (WP:PSTS) that is objective and independent of the belief (WP:NPOV). If you have not familiarized yourself with these core policies, it's going to be difficult for you to understand why a "fact" that is indisputably true for you is considered by Wikipedia to be an extraordinary claim (WP:REDFLAG) that requires such careful sourcing and attribution. It's a lot to read, but I hope you'll take the time to do it, as I think it will help clear up your misgivings about 'anti-religious prejudice', etc. . - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse this (although I don't understand why that 'prophecy' is seen to relate to the Twin Towers instead of to an earthquake, which seems the obvious interpretation). Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A little bit of digging reveals the 9/11 prophecy claim originates from Ryden herself, so the text might be modified to suit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryden never claimed to be receiving messages "in her dreams". The writer of this article should be sued for defamy!  Proper research would involve picking up one her books or reading about her in publications published by people who have actually MET her who explain things like "locutions" and whanot.  You can even hear the testimony from Ryden herself on youtube (skip to 2:20 in this vid).  There you will see that she makes no claim of receiving messages "in her dreams".  Arkatakor (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am just wondering whether the administrators are misunderstanding the basic situation. The point is that Vassula issued a message in 1991, dated September 11th, referring to 'Towers collapsing in a heap of rubble'.  Do you, the administrators, think that Vassula was just 'lucky' somehow and that the coincidence of the dates is just - coincidence??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanack (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, she says that was the date that she received the message about the earth shaking (I can cherry pick too). We only have her word for it. But coincidences happen, and all she needed was something happening on September 11th any year that vaguely fitted and she could make the same claim. But this is irrelevant as we've been trying to explain to you. What we think doesn't count. I do note that if accurate, the whole quote is at and speaks of 'cities' plural. And although I didn't see this before I mentioned earthquake, I did search afterwards  . Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is very exasperating. Kindly take the time to read what people post when they outline things in detail for you.  I listed 4 facts in a previous post.  On point 4 I wrote:


 * The book was printed approximately 19-20 years ago, it had (and of course still has) the September 11th 1991 date attached to this very message, so Ryden could not have possibly changed the date attributed to this message post September 11, 2001 just in order to cater for those unfortunate events. Let me say this again: the book was printed in the early 90's with the aforementioned message attached to the date: September 11, 1991.


 * So there is no having to "take Rydens word for it" as you say - everything that I outlined was purely factual. Purchase the her printed book and verify the publishing date if you dont believe me.  Seriously, wake up people! Arkatakor (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You say, "all she needed was something happening on September 11th any year" No! The point is that the 'coincidence' is that the message is dated 10 years to the day before the New York events.  You say "we only have her word for it" - the books were published with an ISBN number in 1991!!  Once again, to keep things accurate (the Scotsman report is typically inaccurate), the relevant quote is "The earth will shiver and shake and every evil built into Towers will collapse into a heap of rubble and be buried in the dust of sin!"Sasanack (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie and LuckyLouie have explained the Wikipedia related issues. You can't get around them by talking about dates, whether 'the earth will shiver and shake' is about 9/11, etc. But I do apologise for the wrong url, it wasn't the Scotsman one but . Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, well if you are reading the pretentious rubbish on Mr Conte's website, there is not much hope you will understand any of this matter at all. I note that Conte now seems to have stopped predicting apocalyptic events after famously getting a sequence of predictions wrong over the past three or four years!
 * However, for clarity, can you please confirm that if a well known author or an author published by a well known publisher had discussed the above topic, then we could insert the item into the Wikipedia page? But because a 'significant' person has not discussed it, we cannot mention it?   Am I understanding correctly?  Sasanack (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Doug included the Conte link just to show you that not everybody has the same interpretation of Ryden's writings, but that's a moot point. Wikipedia doesn't publish religious beliefs or claims as if they were fact, or publish articles on religious subjects from the believers point of view. Editors do not decide what a source is saying based on their personal feelings about it. We can not take primary sources like Rydens writings and YouTube videos and interpret what words and passages are significant in them. We can only report what established, mainstream sources have to say about a given subject, and we do it according to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. In any case, it's clear to me that this article needs a fundamental rewrite, giving weight to more objective sources. Lexis-Nexis turns up a number of mainstream news mentions of Ryden - and none of them give the excessive weight to proponent views that this article does. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The advice above is correct, but there is more: reliable secondary sources are needed for an issue like this because it is not satisfactory for an editor to read a book and interpret a couple of sentences from that book as predicting a future event, and add it to an article. A reliable source would have studied all the writings by the subject, and would have worked out how many predictions they contain, and what percentage of them could reasonably be said to have predicted a precise event that actually occurred. That is particularly true for red flag claims such as predicting the future—if people can predict the future, why do they do it so vaguely that no useful information is conveyed (the people in the Twin Towers on that day would have appreciated a warning)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I included the Conte link just to show that others who mention this alleged prophesy don't always agree, we certainly couldn't use the link. And I repeat, whatever believers in this may like to think, that sentence talks about shivering and shaking earth causing towers to fall (and evidently in more than one city). Maybe that's why it's been ignored by everyone who doesn't take Ryden seriously. LuckyLouie, I don't have access to Lexis-Nexus, maybe you can help with some sources to make this article more NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered below. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The most recent comments above illustrate a lack of understanding of the nature of religious prophecy. It is actually not about predicting what is going to happen in the future but more about having 'on record' statements which show that the author of the material knew, in advance, events in the future.  The bible is, of course, full of such prophecy so that the people living in Jesus' time were able to recognize that the prophets of the Old Testament had indeed prophecied the nature of the man called Jesus even though most scholars of Israel had expected the Messiah to be a glorious human king.  It is generally only later that prophets can be seen to have prophesied.
 * The case in question regarding Vassula and the Twin Towers is such a prophesy. Vassula certainly knew nothing of the future events in New York when she wrote the message of September 11, 1991 but the 'coincidence' of the dates can not be a coincidence for most people who look objectively at the matter and thus the prophecy acts as testimony to the fact that Vassula's messages are coming from a higher source than herself.
 * However I am now in 'preaching' mode and I am not expecting the contributors above to buy any of this but hopefully a few people out there might be interested in reading the exchanges and I thought I should make a response to the general comments made on prophecy. Sasanack (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the use of "cities" is another prophetic use of language, like in the bible where something can be have a literal, allegorical or metaphysical meaning I believe the same is true here that this could mean Glasgow/Dublin/Sydney etc but also refers to cities as in soul/people. To reiterate from above for this to be included then it seems a source would need to be referenced that "If you think it does meet these criteria, you can ask at WP:RSN which is our noticeboard where we discuss queries over sources" or "'X believes that a paragraph written by Ryden in 1991 prophesied the 9/11 attacks' is not out of the question -- however we need sources for this text that conform to the encylopedia's policies in order to verify that it's a notable opinion (WP:OR,WP:RS), and it comes from a reliable secondary source (WP:PSTS) that is objective and independent of the belief (WP:NPOV)." Webwidget (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Article True Life in God redirected here
After a discussion at Talk:True Life in God I turned the article into a redirect here. I've now been asked if it could be 'recreated' in a way that reflects our guidelines and policies. The reason for the redirect was that it was little more than this article recreated. I'm not sure how that's possible, as these are her notebooks and I don't think a discussion of them can be disentangled from a discussion of Ryden. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly did the right thing; thank you. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph
While the following statement is true:

The Roman Catholic Church issued a statement advising Catholics "not to regard the messages of Vassula Ryden as divine revelations, but only as personal meditations"

it does not offer a wholistic view of the stance of Catholic Church. It fails to mention the follow up interview with the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) as well as the clarifications with regard to the notification that this conversation offered. Mentioning all of these facts in the very first paragraph would be too overwhelming. Hence I feel its best to leave ALL Church related facts (including the 1995 Notification) in the "Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén" section, which already discusses them in detail.

I will be awaiting feedback on this issue before I go ahead and remove the aforementioned sentence in the introductory paragraph, citing this section of the talk page. Arkatakor (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The interview with Ratzinger highlights the technical issue that they won't condemn it without trial, though they will warn people about the writings. This is consistent with the lede quote of "not to regard the messages of Vassula Ryden as divine revelations". IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't see that the conversation with Ratzinger was covered in detail by independent sources, which makes me think the article sections offering only the TLIG.ORG spin on the matter should be trimmed per WP:UNDUE. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Additonally, we should be removing all the spamlinks to tlig.org embedded in those sections, per Citing_sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie - The point is that many of misunderstandings that the notification was founded on were clarified in Ratzingers dialogue with Ryden. This is of paramout importance as Ratzinger was head of the CDF when the notification was released AND was also the person with who Niels Hvidt had the follow up interview.

Thus my previous point: putting the notification by itself WITHOUT explaining the follow up oversimplifies the issue by taking things out of context with regard to the Church's stance on Ryden.

So again it comes down to the following options:

1) either include the follow up information about the clarifications IN the introductory paragraph (which will create a mess of overwhelming inoformation)

2) leave all this information (notification, follow up) in its respective section as was previously the case.

I would also like to encourage you to read up on this issue. This link explains the notification and its follow up in a factual manner without any TLIG propaganda and also includes a picture of Ryden / Ratzinger that proves that the meeting took place. It has been written by Niels Hvidt himself who is the theologian who interviewed Ratzinger (mentioned in the article). I hope this clarifies things. Thanks.

@LuckyLouie - I will get back to you on your concern with regard to sources concerning the follow up on the notification. In the meanwhile, kindly desist from removing 3rd party referenced material. The sourced information that you removed came from the Catholic Times, Issue 613(5895), Page 12, U.K., July 17, 2005. Arkatakor (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Information about the "Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden" should not be sourced to tlig.org, or affiliated authors, or authors published by Trinitas, or anyone who believes Ryden is speaking to God, be they "scholars" or "theologians". These are not what WP considers independent sources. Note that Ryden's supporters are not objective sources for factual opinions about Ryden, e.g. "Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt, a very active Danish supporter of Mrs Ryden. Dr. Hvidt has done much to promote the TLIG messages in Denmark and in the world". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The reference didn't actually say where it was from, I deleted it as being unverifiable. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do the opinions of Fr. Geoffrey Attard have due weight? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What about those reputable clergy / theologians / journalists / lay people who did not believe Ryden was speaking to God until they conducted a proper investigation and THEN made up their minds? Lets take Rene Laurentin, known for taking a scientific approach in his investigations of alleged mystics.  You can observe that his publications go way back before Ryden (anything following "Ouvrages" preceeds a list of his publications). Following his investigation of Ryden in accordance with the criteria of discernment laid down by Rome, he produced two books on Ryden.  However, I suppose according to your logic that his decision to approve Ryden condemns him as far as wikipedia is concerned because he is now "affiliated" and not an "independent source".  Then tell me this - who would ever bother writing any detailed positive information about her if they had not taken some kind of interest in the first place (in most cases through their belief in her authenticity)?  No one.  Then it would follow that its impossible for this article to contain any supportive / positive information as such supportive information can only be written by people who are "affiliated", according to your description.


 * My reason to referring you to Niels Hvidt's website was to let know the meeting actually took place. This meeting resulted in a signed document by Ratzinger that not only confirms the meeting took place but also contains the wording that I mentioned earlier about "the situation being modified".  Unfortunately mainstream media does not care to broadcast such news or give it the coverage it deserves, hence this document being hosted only (as far as I know) on a TLIG website which I understand cannot be used in this article.  I find it rather unfortunate as the existence of this document speaks for itself regarding the positive outcome of the dialogue.


 * Also I would appreciate feedback on your removal of the sourced information from the Catholic Times (a viable 3rd party source) that I mentioned earlier. Arkatakor (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the "Catholic Times" article is not accessible for examination, we can't know if it's an independent source or even what the text of the article says. Can you provide a copy? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You may not have noticed but I actually re-inserted the source, It didn't mention the origin of the text except in the source. I still think it's of dubius due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO, everything below the lead is of dubious weight, garnered from primary sources and people and websites openly devoted to spreading the word about Ryden, e.g. JMJ Publications, which is affiliated with Trinitas, which is affliated with tlig.org, etc. etc. etc. I'll go through it sometime when I have a chance. Arkatakor, re your questions about independent sources, this explanation might be of use. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixes for WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS
Long overdue copyedit completed to fix issues with undue weight, excessive quotes, synthesis of primary sources, etc. There are still a couple of funky sources in there, but I feel the article has benefited from trimming. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

cdf-tlig.org website
Sasanack, I'm not going to revert you further, but I trust somebody will remedy your recent edits. Your wishing to add material from an obvious WP:SELFPUB web page registered to Niels Christian Hvidt is in violation of our WP:FRINGE policies. In any case, details of the dialogue between Hvidt and Ratzinger do not appear to be notable to anyone but Ryden's promoters. So what if Pope Benedict wrote a foreword to an unrelated book by Hvidt? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Kindly review this section regarding reliable sources. It clearly states that authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, are regarded as reliable sources.  Furthermore, under "definition of a 'reliable source'", it states that the publisher of the work should be taken into consideration, and as Sasanack pointed out, Niels Hvidt had his material published in the Oxford University Press.  This may not be applicable to the current link that Sasanack has referred to though - I have not looked into it yet.


 * I have also taken note of your numerous edits yesterday. Much content was removed that was cited by books from authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject.  Also a lot of material was removed that was cited by newspapers.  I am certain that you have overlooked these in your edits, so I would encourage you to spot them out and re-insert the material that was associated with them.  I will list a couple of examples that I have taken note of:


 * (Christian Unity Section - entirely removed) One of the strongest elements in these messages is the gravity of the division between churches and the urgency of the work for unity of the Church and the importance of the ecumenical movement. REF: The Voice of Delhi, July 2005, Vol XV No 7, by Bishop Anil Couto, p. 17.
 * (Prophecies of Rydén Section - entirely removed) In an article written about Vassula titled "Fascinated by mysterious Jesus blogs", the Norwegian news network På Høyden mentioned that: "This female mystic is different from many other "modern prophets" in that she is orthodox and that many of her revelations concern Jesus, and not the Virgin Mary." REF: På Høyden, Norway, January 5, 2007, By Eli Kristine Korsmo


 * I also took note that you have removed the entire "Interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger" section. The reference used to back up this section was a book by Hvidt, Niels Christian (2007), titled Christian prophecy: the post-biblical tradition, published by Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 111-116. ISBN 0-19-531447-6.  According to wikipedia guidelines, the publisher of the work, in this case (Oxford University Press) is more than reliable enough.


 * These are only quick glance examples, I am sure you have overlooked more than these. I will leave it to you to compile a list of material that came from reliable sources that you removed and to re-insert it accordingly.  Thanks.  Arkatakor (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well one thing at a time. First, this material. The story, as far as I can figure out, is that the RC Church issued a warning to Catholics that Ryden's various claims and teachings were not officially sanctioned. Ryden's supporters petitioned the RC Church until Ratzinger, then just a cardinal, agreed to discuss the situation with Ryden and later, one of her supporters. The outcome of that discussion was Ratzinger saying everything in the original warning was still valid, but clarifying that it was just a warning and not a condemnation. All of this is adequately summarized in our article.


 * Ryden's supporters (TLIG.org, various Trinitas authors, web pages, etc) have a highly eccentric interpretation of that discussion: i.e. it's some kind of recognition by the RC Church that Ryden is important, or that the Church is now more favorable to Ryden and her claims, or that it should bear some imposing title that sounds really official, such as Dialogue with a capital "D", or Clarification, etc.


 * I can understand why Ryden's supporters feel that getting this interpretation into a Wikipedia BIO of Ryden is "of paramount importance" (as one editor put it). However Wikipedia doesn't see it the same way, especially if the interpretation isn't notable in 3rd party sources that are *independent* of the subject (and no, Hvidt is not independent or objective about Ryden, he admits to being an unabashed believer in her powers and is listed on the Ryden-boosting TLIG.ORG as a supporter of hers).


 * Ryden promoters such as Hvidt may be seen as "authoritative" within the Ryden movement, but lavishly detailed coverage of their ideas falls under WP:FRINGE, and especially WP:WEIGHT on Wikipedia. If the RC Church has issued any further statements on Ryden or there exists some extended analysis of the situation by an objective source (such as independent press coverage) we can certainly cover that in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk)


 * It is interesting to see the continuing opposition to the cdf-tlig.org site. I don't really think anyone would waste their time removing the item if they REALLY believed it had no particular importance.  The other point to make is that as far as can be seen, those opposing the inclusion of the item are against religion in general so one wonders why they are wasting their time on a subject like this. Sasanack (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And to respond to one of the comments from LuckyLouie above, the reason that the cdf-tlig.org item is important is because it provides reliable information on the Vatican's dealings with Vassula since the Notifications of 1995 and 1996. It does not, for the most part, include opinions but is simply a narrative of what happened.  The fact that this information is not available elesewhere is not a good reason to block its use on the Vassula page!Sasanack (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As you said here at AN/I when you were previously engaged in conflict about this same issue, "the dialogue has never been published by the Vatican and is never published by third parties". Concerning Hvidt as a source: he freely admits in a newspaper interview his belief that Ryden "has received revelations from God". A cursory look at the TLIG site shows he has actively promoted her; introducing her at conferences, soliciting the RC Church on her behalf, etc. I have nothing against his or anyone's religious beliefs, but I think any reasonable person will agree Hvidt is not a reliable source for objective or independent views concerning Ryden. He should especially not be used as a source to cite the Roman Catholic Church's views or activities. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased that you say you have nothing against anyone's religious beliefs, although your actions rather seem to conflict with that fact. I am in no way suggesting that Dr Hvidt is anything other than a long standing supporter of Vassula.  It is because of his support for Vassula that he was able to facilitate communications between Vassula and the Vatican.  But it is clearly ridiculous that because he is positive about Vassula, nothing he states about her can be included in Wikipedia!  I hope you can recognize the absurdity of that. I repeat again that he is not giving opinions but is relating the history of the dialogue between the Vatican and Vassula.  His reputation as a serious author is more than sufficient to make him a reliable source of information.  Why are you and the others so opposed to this?  Are you so horrified that people might see a picture of Vassula standing happily alongside the Cardinal in his office? Sasanack (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hvidt's beliefs are given due weight along with Ryden's other supporters and are presently included in the article in the section Vassula_Ryden. So "nothing he states about her can be included in Wikipedia" appears to be an exaggeration. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And now I see that user, Eldamorie, has removed the cdf-tlig.org info and threatens me with banning if I dare to re-insert the item. She states that there are more people against including the item than are in favour and on that basis I should be banned if I re-instate the item. I cannot pretend to know all the rules of Wikipedia but if I am to be banned on that basis then so be it. It will then be necessary to organise those who are strongly supportive of Vassula to register on Wikipedia and then maybe we can enforce a proper page for her which gives better and more accurate inforamtion than is currently the case. Sasanack (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An open declaration that you intend to coordinate meatpuppetry is not advisable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for introducing me to another Wikipedia 'word'! But I note with interest when I look up the word that Wikipedia wisely states: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." I hope editors, in particular Eldamorie, will take note. Sasanack (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The cdf-tlig.org clearly does not meet our criteria for a reliable source. I don't think it can be used for anything. Also, looking at Sasanack's contributions, I'm hearing a lot of quacking. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah another editor suddenly interested in Vassula.... I think another atheist?  Sorry about the quacking but I am trying to respond to some very fixed ideas from the Wikipedia regulars.  I note you say "our criteria" in your comment.  Do you consider that you own Wikipedia to some degree?  Sasanack (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a self-proclaimed atheist. However, attacking people about whom you know nothing is fairly offensives.  See WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  You keep adding something that fails WP:RS, and instead of trying to find something that supports your edits, you attack other editors.  Not wise.  Not wise at all.  But we still love you.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello SkepticalRaptor. Could you explain in what way I have "attacked other editors"?  Is asking if they are an atheist an attack?  Is asking if they consider they own Wikipedia in some way an attack?  And then you go on to say, "Not wise.  Not wise at all." which comes across to me as rather threatening...   But I shall take your words of love at face value and thank you and say I love all you people as well but I don't much like some of the things you are doing on Wikipedia.  Sasanack (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do you consider that you own Wikipedia to some degree?" "Ah another editor suddenly interested in Vassula….I think another atheist?" Claiming that I'm threatening you wouldn't be an attack, but certainly would be consider a failure of assuming good faith, which you didn't know.  My comment about being wise is simply that you lack any wisdom whatsoever.  You attack people rather than taking very civil suggestions from a whole host of editors how to get your point across.  But you'd rather accuse and complain.  And now you think that my suggestion is some sort of attack.   Just because I'm not into the whole god delusion thing, doesn't give you any right to criticize what I'm doing on Wikipedia.  Oh, wait, that's another personal attack from you.  Sad, really.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack, you and Arkatakor advocated for inclusion of the same cdf-tlig.org material at Talk:True Life In God and found no support there, so your continued hammering on the subject is beginning to seem like tendentious editing to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its important we don't misunderstand each other on this topic. You can take note that 5 days ago, already at the beginning of this particular discussion (cdf-tlig.org), I had my uncertainties about the usage of the cdf-tlig website as an ideal source to backup this interview claim.  (see my comment dated 09:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)), so don't see where my "continued hammering" applies to this (cdf-tlig.org) discussion.  Arkatakor (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will make this my final comment on this matter for the time being. The most disappointing aspect of what has been happening with the page on Vassula is that editors who clearly know nothing about the subject come in and seem to take delight in deleting information that 'break Wikipedia rules'.  Because they know nothing about the subject and seem to have no interest in learning about it, their interventions effectively result in a Wikipedia page which is inadequate and inaccurate.  With regard to 'breaking the rules', I wonder if they have ever reflected on the content available from the Wikipedia page at [].  In particular, I would just like to quote the part that I believe you editors are completely ignoring:  "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule."  Sasanack (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I will make this my final comment on this matter for the time being." Thank you.  While you're not making any more comments about this, please read WP:WIARM.  Have a nice evening.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooo, you've tempted me to break my own promise/rule.... The page you quote is another excellent one.  Here are what are for me highlights: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit.  Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you." Sasanack (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This text is to merely highlight that there are exceptions to the rules and they should not be followed without common sense, not that we should ignore them see WP:FIVEPILLARS. Since you don't "know all the rules of Wikipedia" as you put it, it seems a bit much to think you know the spirit of those very same rules. You appear to have a clear intent to push WP:POV content. Consensus means giving lesser weight to comments that don't abide by existing policies and guidelines, but reasons have been given against the inclusion which are consistent with existing policy and guidelines. Hvidt is clearly not an independent reliable source required per WP:RS. The reason you are required to match the spirit of the rules is because of the consensus around which caused the rules to exist. i.e Editors are expected to improve the articles based on the consensus of all editors not by blindly following rules based on that consensus. Your opinions are both against policy and guidelines (and you haven't demonstrated how your point matches the spirit of the rules), and you have no consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I knew that you wouldn't spare us further comments. To add a bit more to what IRWolfie says, you are rule-mining, finding guidelines that benefit your desire to push a POV, while ignoring all others.  Your attempt to ignore the vast majority of guidelines, which is clear you haven't closely studied, would create an anarchy with everyone writing what they want.  That's why the Creationism article balances the unscientific junk with science.  And the Evolution article just talks about the science, since it is completely NPOV that science supports the fact of evolution.  You should take some time from commenting which won't get you anywhere, and try to actually understand what makes a good article.   And that is not to push a POV.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Niels-Chistian Hvidt, Roman Catholic theologian, is an acquaintance of Cardinal Ratzinger who was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) when he wrote the Preface for his doctoral dissertation on Christian Prophecy from the Gregorian University, published by Oxford University Press in 2007 (after the Cardinal became Pope Benedict). He knows Vassula Ryden as well and wrote a Chapter about her in his dissertation as an example of possible contemporary Christian Prophecy. Thus Dr Hvidt was in the best position to play a key part in the dialogue between the CDF and Vassula and to act as an intermediate in his own right.  He personally attended Cardinal Ratzinger's audience granted to Vassula in the Vatican on 21st November 2004 and was allowed to photograph Vassula alongside the Cardinal.  In his position of neutral intermediate - and privileged direct observer -  he was in the best position to make an independent report of the history of the dialogue between the CDF and Vassula.  In order to make his report available on an independent, neutral, website Dr Hvidt took the domain name CDF-TLIG.ORG to symbolize his position of intermediate between CDF and TLIG.  All the information on the site can be backed up by original correspondence available from Dr Hvidt.  The site is entirely independent of the tlig.org site. Kovak (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Again, if you guys want the article to report Ryden's "history" of "official dialogue" with "the Vatican", we require the Vatican to be the cited source rather than one of Ryden's proponents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I firmly agree. Hvidt's self-published website is inadequate for documenting official Vatican proceedings. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I understand your concerns about citing any TLIG related websites in the article and I agree that any material pertaining to it should be omitted, until a more independent source can be found. Previously, I supported the material in the article referenced from the www.cdf-tlig.org website because it contained blatant proof of the claim that it backed, which was supported with a photo of Rydén and Ratzinger and the scanned original letter with the Vatican Seal. However, upon further review of WP policy, I have realized that despite the facts that I highlighted, it still does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Since we all agree that the free encyclopedia must adhere to the rules and guidelines so as to fulfill the aim of generating accurate information to its readers, I would like to highlight some of your edits that contradict the fundamental content policies of Wikipedia.

Even though the reference can no longer be used, when you stated that "until Ratzinger, then just a cardinal, agreed to discuss the situation with Ryden" - you overlooked the fact that Ratzinger was not "just a cardinal", but was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) - which means that at the time he ranked second on the hierarchical tier of the Roman Catholic Church, after the Pope, and was the same person who signed the "warning to Catholics" (The Notification). This edit highlights a clear breach of WP:NOR. In accordance with this rule: Just as Paris is the capital of France and needs no source, Ratzinger's title before he became Pope is attributable, even if not attributed.

I would also like to remind you that you are yet to respond to or action my request to restore the material that was cited from the following: Voice of Delhi, the Phoenix New Times, Pa Hoyden and the Catholic Times, as well as other third-party publishers, which were in direct compliance with WP:IRS and WP:3PARTY. Arkatakor (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What is your current suggested text and references? Note that the CDF has confirmed multiple times (even in 2007) that the notification is still in effect. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Arkatakor: considering all the previous unbridled puffery and spin attempts by TLIG with this article, I thought it prudent to have text clarifying that Ratzinger was not yet the Pope. Sasanak has disclosed his conflict of interest. Do you have one to disclose as well? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect, Sasanack has not 'disclosed his conflict of interest', he has simply 'disclosed' he is a supporter of Vassula. It is clear that contributors to Wikipedia need to know about and understand the topic they are dealing with (I would expect contributors to, say, the page about Michael Jackson to be generally rather positive about him!).  If we are going to talk about conflicts of interest, I certainly believe those editors who are opposed to religion in general do have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the Vassula page.  LuckyLouie has not yet disclosed whether he shares this antipathy to religion. Sasanack (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:COI about what constitutes a conflict of interest. It's apparent that you appear to work for or have strong links to tlig, this appears to be a conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie has at least been open about his views on religion and so his conflict of interest is clear. But it would be nice if the other editors disclosed their positions on religion and on Vassula in particular. Sasanack (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you check again about what a conflict of interest is. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

LuckyLouie: Personally speaking, I am as much of a conflict of interest to this article as you are. In the past, you have taken an openly prejudiced approach against any theologian/ researcher who has been supportive of Ryden’s cause. Case in point: In your previous communications dated 14:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC), you stated: "Note that Ryden's supporters are not objective sources for factual opinions about Ryden". However, the objectivity of this article does not depend on either of our “implied views” on the subject – as judgment is always relative. That is why the only method of ensuring that the content of the article fulfills this free encyclopedia’s aim of disseminating accurate information to its readers is to analyze it against Wikipedia’s stipulated rules and guidelines.

First off, let me bring to your attention a point I raised previously, to which you have not yet replied. (See below.) The reference used to back up this section was a book by Hvidt, Niels Christian (2007), titled Christian prophecy: the post-biblical tradition, published by Oxford [Oxfordshire]:Oxford University Press. pp. 111-116. ISBN 0-19-531447-6. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the publisher of the work, in this case (Oxford University Press) is more than reliable enough. Also take note that the book was published with the foreword of Josef Ratzinger after he became Pope Benedict (see www.christian-prophecy.org).

You had stated that "Ryden promoters such as Hvidt may be seen as "authoritative" within the Ryden movement". I would like to address the parallels you seem to have drawn about the affinity Rydén and Hvidt share and therein your scepticism over the inclusion of the above-mentioned book. This should dispel the misconceptions you have and highlight how this publication complies with all of Wikipedia’s content policies:


 * 1) Niels Christian Hvidt obtained his doctoral degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University and has worked for a number of years with the theme of prophecy in the framework of Christian Prophecy, states Ratzinger in the book’s Foreword. (See WP:IRS.) Here is a complete list of Hvidt's publications. You will find it under the "Publications" tab. You can use Google Translate for the titles of the Danish publications.
 * 2) The book, under the direction of Fr. Prof. Elmar Salmann of the Pontifical Institute of Sant’Anselmo, is Hvidt’s doctoral dissertation, which investigates the issue of Christian Prophecy. (See: WP:3PARTY.) Needless to say, a dissertation undergoes several stages of peer evaluation and therefore is written from a disinterested perspective.  This makes it fully compliant with WP:IS, a point raised by yourself at 18:27, 4 May 2012.
 * 3) With regard to the book’s content, Ratzinger states, “In the historical part of the work, Hvidt shows that the prophetic call of God through the prophets appears throughout the history of the Church". In his discussion of fundamental theology, Hvidt therefore investigates the purpose and preconditions of Christian prophecy in light of developments over the past 50 years in revelation theology, which have given new impetus to the discussion of Christian Prophecy. In this way he offers a new approach to the actualisation of revelation and to the development of tradition and dogma regarding revelation.” (Again see: WP:IS a rule referred by you.) Rydén is mentioned only as one of the examples of prophecy within a chapter dedicated to historical examples of prophecy, which constitutes only one dimension of the larger framework of the book’s content.
 * 4) As mentioned previously, the book has been published by the Oxford University Press. (See WP:IRS Scholarship section). With a publisher of this repute, the book meets the three core content policies of Wikipedia—namely WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, which jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. And because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.

I assume you made your previous statements about Hvidt without the benefit of the full knowledge of the backgrounds of the researcher / theologian in question. Having clarified my reasons for the inclusion of references to Hvidt’s book and how your edits have not complied with Wikipedia’s content policies, I will proceed to reinsert the material mentioned associated with the book in question.

I will conclude by stating that I think its fair enough to state that your knowledge on this subject matter appears limited, especially with regard to the theologians who have reviewed Rydén. I would suggest you do further research on this subject, such as reading some of the books published about Ryden, researching the backgrounds on those who published them, as well as read up on ALL the documentation published by the CDF in detail before making additional edits to this article. Case in point, in your removal of any mention of the CDF dialogue with Ryden (now entirely absent from the article), you overlooked the fact that Levada himself had acknowledged that the CDF dialogue with Ryden had taken place (see point 2). This is a source that was already being used in this article to backup Levada's January 25, 2007 statement, yet it was not used to point out that the dialogue had taken place since you did not take the time to read it. Arkatakor (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie-: I am currently in the process of gathering more references to backup Rydens dialogue with the CDF. I intend to use Hvidts book as one of them as it contains a short paragraph referring to it in a rather abstract manner. I have also found at least 2 other publications that mention the dialogue (mainly Christian magazines) and will list them shortly. We can also use Levada's 2007 statement which will mean a total of 4 references. Levada also mentions that the dialogue with Ryden and the CDF was published in a particular volume of TLIG (see point 2) which would lead me to assume an exception can be made to include the TLIG book for reference to this dialogue only, even if its a primary source. If we do this, it will bring the reference count to 5 which should more than suffice. Arkatakor (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I find the statement "LuckyLouie: Personally speaking, I am as much of a conflict of interest to this article as you are" doubtful in that you appear to be a single purpose account WP:SPA exclusively focused on this topic whilst LuckyLouie is not. Perhaps you would like to clarify your level of involvement with tlig? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arkatakor/Sasanack, you don't understand WP:COI. Your connection to TLIG.ORG is definitely a cause for concern. Re: the CDF statements: they are primary sources (being merely reposted on ewtn.com) that contain lots of language. Certain details of that language could be interpreted as either trivial or crucial, depending on which editor is doing the interpreting. That's why on Wikipedia, editors don't analyze, interpret or selectively emphasize details of primary sources. We wait for independent reliable secondary sources to do that analysis. The most we can say is that these statements were issued in 199X-2007 and that they reiterated the original position of the RC Church on Ryden. Regarding Hvidt, as explained before, he is an admitted promoter of Ryden, and consequently he's not an independent source for such interpretations. Also, the Ratzinger statement of warning vs. condemnation that is presently in the article needs a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

LuckyLouie:I have addressed your COI concerns in my response to IRWolfie-. RE: Regarding Hvidt, as explained before, he is an admitted promoter of Ryden, and consequently he's not an independent source for such interpretations.. Hvidt was not interpreting anything in his book but was merely stating facts, otherwise it would not have been in compliance with WP:IRS, WP:IS, WP:IRS Scholarship meeting the three core content policies of Wikipedia—namely WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, which jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Here are the facts the relevant paragraph in the book outlines:


 * 1) The RC Church did not call the messages heretic
 * 2) There were 5 questions submitted to Ryden dated April 4, 2002
 * 3) Rydens answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.
 * 4) Ratzinger wrote a letter (also hosted on EWTN) indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments”. He also advised that the Catholic faithful should be called to follow the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops regarding the participation in the ecumenical prayer groups organized by Mrs. Ryden.

I have checked the previous versions of this article and as far as I could see there was no indication that Hvidt was "interpreting" the dialogue itself. However the previous versions of this article had excessive direct quotes from his discussion with Ratzinger, which I found exceedingly long for an article that was meant to focus on Ryden and not on the details of an interview. I had always meant to shorten it and summarize its contents in a single paragraph. Back at the time I also had in mind creating a new article called "Vassula Ryden: Church Position" (since she is so controversial within religious circles) and paste the full interview in there (for those who were keen on details) along with Orthodox views etc but never got round to it.

IRWolfie: Here is some proposed text for the CDF conversation which more or less summarizes what happened between 2000 and 2004;

From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF. The CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors. Subsequently, the CDF submitted five questions to her in a letter dated April 4, 2002. The five questions were meant to clarify certain expressions that could be misinterpreted but that were not in themselves heretic according to Catholic doctrine. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger, Ryden answers were published in the twelfth volume of her writings. As a conclusion to this dialogue, Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter, dated July 10, 2004, to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments”. He also advised that the Catholic faithful should be called to follow the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops regarding the participation in the ecumenical prayer groups organized by Mrs. Ryden.

References to backup the above:


 * 1) Hvidt, Niels Christian (2007). Christian prophecy: the post-biblical tradition. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p.119. ISBN 0-19-531447-6.
 * 2) Stella Maris, Parvis, issue # 476, Page 10, January 2010 (last paragraph in entire article - use Google Translate)
 * 3) Ratzinger, Joseph: Letter to Presidents of [certain Bishops Conferences] (10 July 2004)
 * 4) Levada, William. "Letter to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences (25 January 2007)" (point 2 in this letter)

Let me know what you think. Arkatakor (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only the Vatican can speak for the Vatican. If the Vatican at some future date chooses to emphasize only the sentences you've selected to emphasize, then no problem. Otherwise, we require the Vatican to be the cited source for any unusual emphasis. (Although Hvidt's opinions, properly attributed, might be used in the Supporters section, e.g. his declaration that "Medical reports confirm cures of grave illnesses in her presence", etc.)
 * If this information is only covered by an obscure, non-notable foreign religious magazine, it can't be that noteworthy. See WP:NOENG. Also see #1.
 * Primary source, best added to "External links". But we're not able to cherry pick and emphasize only certain parts of it that are important to TLIG.ORG in the article text.
 * Same as #3
 * - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have copied the response from uninvolved editors in section below (Commentary and discussion by uninvolved editors) for everyones perusal. I will comment further on this later. Arkatakor (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie: As mentioned in my undo comment, you know very well that the aforementioned link will eventually expire. Your removal of the section below seems to be indicative of a desperate attempt to hide feedback from objective commentators whose viewpoint differs substantially from your own. Furthermore, the comment should remain here for future reference should anyone wish to use it. Arkatakor (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an edit history feature on wikipedia, past comments are never lost, they are always in the archive. Considering the statements appear to essentially support the arguments against inclusion I fail to see how this is an attempt to hide feedback. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware of this, however we are both also aware of the fact that the archives are continually iterative, which means that links referring to RSN's in turn are also iterative (thus constantly expiring). Keeping the full conversation here is the only way to have a non changing permanent reference to it for all to see when they want.  My reason to post the feedback below is not to gloat but simply so that other future users do not make the same mistake with regard to the references like Hvidt or that of other prominent theologians who have backed Ryden.  If it makes you more comfortable, I would be happy to remove my comment dated 11:43, 4 June 2012 as being in conflict with you is not my objective.  Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because Hvidt is a strong supporter of Ryden (tlig's words) means that he is not independent as has already been indicated. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the now archived RSN discussion with feedback from uninvolved editors as well as Despayre's reconfirmation of my queries, I have inserted the proposed text backed by Hvidt's book as a source. Both the text I proposed and the source to back said text have now passed general consensus. Furthermore, according the the feedback of the RSN discussion and that of my discussion with Despayre, the usage of EWTN, a primary source in a BLP article is strictly prohibited. This entails that any text using EWTN as a reference should be removed. Arkatakor (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Consensus is formed here (especially considering comments by editors here were explicitly forbidden by Fifelfoo), there was no consensus about inserting the content at RSN, RSN comments about the reliability of a source, not whether it has due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is regarding theories, speculation; "is the earth flat", did the Ratzinger/Ryden correspondence/meeting take place is not a theory it is a fact which is WP:V and there is a WP:RS saying it took place, Hividt was involved and witnessed it so I dont see how WP:WEIGHT can be used to dispute that the (event) correspondence + meeting took place.

I am asserting that Hvidt is a WP:RS by definition of Reliable Sources, What counts as a reliable source The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability. Given Hividt is published by OUP (Oxford University Press publishes works that further Oxford University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.) his material should count as a WP:RS and rate as a 'significant viewpoint'. Additionally his published works in the field of Christian Prophecy and as a theologian, an academic and plus his status as witness to the dialogue and as the person who documented the dialogue single him out as the ideal WP:RS for this citation regarding the Ratzinger/Ryden dialogue. WP:WEIGHT can be cited against the revelation being authentic and collectively we can look to address it differently in other views but the Church is torn against itself with "Cardinal against Cardinal" in their views and opinions on this so again I dont see how WP:WEIGHT can be used when “In 2005, the True Life in God writings were granted a Nihil obstat by Bishop Felix Toppo S.J. (India) and Imprimatur by Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles (Philippines).[citation needed]” Also there are Cardinal Napiers positive comments on the Catholic Arch diocese of Durban website for the Writings/Author which further demonstrate that this viewpoint is not a  WP:FRINGE  theory and that this is in fact a “significant viewpoint” that should be represented to achieve neutrality in this section of the article. This is a controversial subject and by adding a reference to the Ratzinger/Ryden dialogue will work towards bringing more WP:BALANCE. in to the article.

From the WP:WEIGHT article From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: § If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; § If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; § If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. From the above 3 points I would say it could be argued that either of the below statements could be seen to fall under the first 2 depending on your point of view, the 3rd if you have an extreme viewpoint. The writings are condemned The writings are authentic "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." The authenticity of the writings/author is prevalent in reliable resources, Hividt being a WP:RS but again this is not even Hividts opinion we are talking about here, it is the fact that a WP:RS says the correspondence & meeting between Ratzinger & Ryden took place & witnessed it so I dont see how WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE can be used to remove it. As it stands WP:UNDUE weight is being given to the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén and adding reference to the dialogue that took place between Ratzinger & Ryden will work towards more WP:BALANCE Webwidget (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weight is relevant to all article content, not just speculation. That something happened does not mean it has due weight for an article. If adding the content is misleading it can be undue even if verifiable. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is one where the existence of the meeting is being used to offset statements by the CDF on Vassula before and after the meeting is meant to have taken place. This does not contribute to the article except to mislead. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Commentary and discussion by uninvolved editors
Comment - User Arkatakor asked me, an uninvolved editor, to comment on this (because I also commented on the DRN page). It would be nice to have some other source for the 2000-2004 dialogs, especially a Vatican source. For example, the 1995 Vatican pronouncement is on the Vatican website here ... does the Vatican have something comparable for the 2000-2004 dialogs? Also: The sources above indicate that Ryden included some of the 2000-2004 dialogs in subsequent editions of her books. It is appropriate for the article to summarize the content of her books; and the post-2004 amendment which included some of this dialog could be mentioned in the article. That is permitted under the principle that a primary source or fringe source can be used as a citation for describing the content/view of the source itself. Thus, Ryden's book could be used to present her view of this purported dialog. But the article could not word it in such a way to suggest that the dialog conclusively happened ... it must simply say that Ryden claims the dialog happened, and that she amended her books in the year 200X to include blah, blah. --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling. Oxford University Press (OUP) published a research monograph on theology.  Hvidt is widely recognised in the field of contemporary religosity (a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Miracles from CUP), he is cited favourably in Politics, religion & ideology ( 10.1080/21567689.2012.659487 ) regarding modern catholic religosity.  OUP is a scholarly publisher of theology and religious studies, CUP is a scholarly publisher of theology and religious studies, Politics, religion & ideology is a scholarly journal of studies of religion.  Hvidt academic work appears to be standard to me, the quote from the text looks standard.  The actual use of this may be misweighted though, it looks like a short sentence fact regarding interfaith theological dialogue.
 * The two letters are external links at best. There is no indication of why any weight should bear on open circulars, or why the opinions of involved parties should be included in wikipedia's voice when we've got an OUP publication.  I would frankly consider these primary sources due to the direct involvement of the senior religious administrators in question.
 * Swiss journalists are not experts in the structure of internal Catholic disciplinary limitations against external texts, Hvidt already supplies a scholarly account. There is no reason to consider use of this source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding Hvidt. As quoted from Oxford University Press, "Oxford University Press publishes works that further Oxford University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.". It appears that Hvidt is also an Associate Professor of Theology at the University of Southern Denmark. He also taught for 4 years at the Gregorian University in Rome. As well, he's been a "visiting scholar" listed at the faculty of theology at the university of Notre Dame. He has extensive publication in journals, books, magazines, and newspaper articles, all dealing with theology. I cannot find a single reason why this source would not be RS for its claims. I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.
 * I do not find ewtn.com to be RS. (reasons available if necessary, but it seems pretty obvious)
 * I do not find parvis.ch to be RS. (obvious reasons there too, also it's unnecessary as stated by Fifelfoo above) --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs)

As Fifelfoo says above, Oxford Press is a very reliable publishing house, and the author Hvidt is apparently not a fringe source. There is no reason to exclude the material from Hvidt's book. However, to be prudent, the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guidance should be followed, meaning that Hvidt should be identified as the source (rather than presenting the material in the encyclopedia's voice). I have inserted the material from Hvidt (2 sentences) ... no material from the ewtn website was used. Here is the text:

If anyone wants to amend that by adding more information about Hvidt (potential bias, for example) please do so, in accordance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite yet. Discussion is still taking place at DRN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits following DRN discussions
I have made some edits as per recent progress in the DRN, pending is this for what used to be Eastern Orthodox Stance

and answer the obvious question of why we say she is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church and then say that the Greek Orthodox Church says that her teachings are heretical. Webwidget (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@all, Should this also be moved to the Criticism section? am thinking, cut it back, keep it to the highlights In September 2005, the spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland warned people against going to Rydén's conference in Edinburgh. Referring to the 1995 Notification, he said Rydén "certainly did not" operate with the approval of the Church and that "the advice to Catholics is not to attend her gatherings due to the suspect nature of her alleged revelations, which contain doctrinal errors."[9]

apologies if we should be staying on the DRN, if I am forking the discussion by commenting here on the talk page then I will move my various comments here in to the DRN when back on line. Webwidget (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu

In 2005, the True Life in God writings were granted a Nihil obstat by Bishop Felix Toppo S.J. (India) and Imprimatur by Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles (Philippines).

> Uncited and trivial

Uncited, sure

Trival, dont agree,

Nihil obstat (Latin for "nothing hinders" or "nothing stands in the way") is a declaration of no objection to an initiative or an appointment.

would seem to have relevance to this section, as does:

Imprimatur "An imprimatur (from Latin, "let it be printed") is, in the proper sense, a declaration authorizing publication of a book. The term is also applied loosely to any mark of approval or endorsement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwidget  (talk • contribs)  02:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Neither one carries with it even the faintest wiff of agreement or endorsement. From out article on Nihil obstat:
 * "The Censor Librorum delegated by a bishop of the Catholic Church reviews the text in question, but the nihil obstat is not a certification that those granting it agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed in the work; instead, it merely confirms that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals."
 * from the article on the imprimatur:
 * "The imprimatur is not an endorsement by the bishop of the contents of a book, not even of the religious opinions expressed in it, being merely a declaration about what is not in the book.[4] In the published work, the imprimatur is sometimes accompanied by a declaration of the following tenor:
 * The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed."
 * Both are granted under the authority of a diocesan bishop, which carries a lot less weight than either the Pope or the CDF. They are pretty much irrelevant for the stance of the Church as a whole. Their mention here violates WP:WEIGHT and misleads the reader without lengthy explanation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu Maybe not in that section, not sure it can go in as is in the supporters section as these are neutral statements as they are but having them somewhere in the article will address the criticism "the advice to Catholics is not to attend her gatherings due to the suspect nature of her alleged revelations, which contain doctrinal errors."[7] Nihil obstat: it merely confirms that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals. Webwidget (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That criticism doesn't need to be addressed. And it would violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR to address it with this nihil obstat and imprimatur. It is YOUR conclusion that there is some sort of disagreement between the Church in Scotland and the bishops who granted the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, and it is YOUR conclusion that these can be compared at all. Unless the apparent disagreement is described in relaible independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned.
 * Also, the sentence dealing with Ratzinger's clarification that the notification is a warning and not a condemnation is unreliably sourced and misleading. As Ratzinger himself explains, the difference is procedural in nature in that the CDF cannot formally condemn Ryden without a trial. However, no trial is possible because Ryden, as a non-Catholic, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the CDF (or any other Church organ, for that matter). Thus Ratzinger issued the highest level of notification that he was allowed to under the circumstances. To state, as Hvidt does in his self-published report, that "only a warning" was issued was deceptive on his part. Per the DRN, he has no business interpreting the Church's stand anyway. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie: Can you fix the publishing date for the "L'Osservatore Romano English edition: 12. 25." source that is being used in the article? The dates are not appearing properly in the references section. It should clearly state the month and year that it was released. I gave it a shot but could not figure out how to fix it. Arkatakor (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the ref. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)