Jump to content

Talk:Vassula Rydén/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

WP:LEAD

Editors making changes may not be familiar with our manual of style that says a lead section should serve as a summary of the article's most important aspects. I'm not sure why a detail such as Ryden's devoted following has been left in - and all other details (such as the controversy) have been left out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it. I also note that a substantial amount of references were deleted, I restored them as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Following the LEAD guideline, I just expanded the lead section with negative material regarding the Church's official stance. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
In this particular case, the consensus following extensive discussion here and at WP:DRN is that the lead should remain purely factual and that both support and criticism should be moved to those sections. Consensus changes, of course, so if you feel that the lead should have criticism, trying to convince others and form a new consensus would be fine.
The reasoning behind having a factual lead is that we have not yet reached a full consensus on the support and criticism sections, especially on the question of whether to briefly list counterarguments next to arguments or to keep the sections pure support and pure criticism. In addition, there is an ongoing discussion about keeping the catholic church section. It would be very difficult to keep changing the lead as consensus on these issues evolves. Better to have a factual lead that everyone agrees with, and then to revisit the question of adding material summarizing the criticism and support sections once they are stable and agreed-upon. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Several things, Guy. First of all, I don't see any reason to keep the discussion on DRN open any more. The original purpose for the discussion has long been accomplished, and the discussion taking place there should be taking place here instead. I propose that that discussion be formally terminated.
Second, it appears that you have moved from being an uninvolved DRN clerk to an involved editor. Your suggestions should therefore be discussed here, rather than at DRN.
Third, your suggestion above does not seem to be backed up by WP policies, which state that the lede should summarize the important aspects of the body of the text, under which the official Catholic position most definitely falls. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was not established. I see you suggesting it but that is all. Seriously I think when you are at the stage of reverting editors for your specific viewpoint then you are no longer impartially involved. There appears to be no consensus for removing content from the lede that I can see, where is it? I thought dispute resolution volunteers were not meant to get directly involved but work in a mediating capacity (make suggestions but leave it at that). And for future reference: Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than responding, I am going to leave these questions for the editors who have been working on this page to resolve, because if I have an unconscious bias or got some essential facts wrong, I would be the last to see that. I think my viewpoint is that editors should follow consensus - I certainly have no opinion or feelings one way or the other about Vassula Ryden, but again,would I realize it if I was biased? So here are my questions. I will follow whatever the consensus is.

Did we reach a consensus to move the criticism out of the lead?

Were my recent edits to this page inappropriate?

Am I being biased toward one position or the other?

Should I recuse myself and ask another dispute resolution volunteer to step in?

Are we done with dispute resolution? Should it be closed?

Please don't hold back or think you can't criticize me; I am fine with recusing myself if that is the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw you suggest a purely factual lead section, twice, but nobody discussed it. Arkatakor formulated a proposed lead section based on your concept of the purely factual lead, but the proposal was flawed by a too-positive outlook with phrases such as "attracted a devoted following".
I did not respond to your suggestion because I felt it was untenable; that the WP:LEAD guideline should never be set aside for a controversial person. I still feel that way.
I think the lead section could easily hold three paragraphs. One factual, one about her works and followers, and one with criticism and the official Church stance. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Binksternet that the lead can & should summarize the entire article, per WP:LEAD. If the body contains a whole section on the Catholic Church's position, then that section should be summarized in the lead. FWIW: I still think Hvidt's opinion about the Church's 2004 view of Ryden should be in the article (it appears to be gone now). WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV suffices to cover any bias of his. --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have self-reverted the edit in question based upon the above. As I said, I want to follow the consensus, and if I misunderstood what the consensus was and acted upon that wrong information, I am glad to revert my error with apologies. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon is one of what is now quite a significant number of 'non-involved' (and consequently reasonably neutral) editors who have made helpful contributions to the conflict of opinion over the Vassula page which has been going on for some time. None of them that I recall have supported the exclusion of information about the CDF dialogue. Several have, however, confirmed specific difficulties with appropriate references.

But may I remind editors again that there are no absolute rules in WP and the continued exclusion of the important CDF dialogue (as well as other important church related matters like the Nihil Obstat granted to the messages) is being maintained to give the article a slant which is negative and unbalanced.

On the matter of whether the topic should be moved from the DRN to here, clearly Guy would prefer that for practical reasons but those editors suggesting it are aware that there is a much greater possibility (danger?) of independent editors contributing to the discussion while on DRN. --Sasanack (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been stated before, the material only serves to mislead since we have well referenced content before and after the meeting which states the position of the catholic church. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocking information from WP in case its inclusion misleads is hardly good policy for an open and free encyclopedia! Whereas blocking the information is certainly misleading the reader.--Sasanack (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Being open and free doesn't mean we are indiscriminate about what content we include. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

DRN discussion

Rather than copying it over here, let it be noted that there was a long discussion about the Roman Catholic Church stance and lede sections of this article at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Vassula_Ryden (and which will almost certainly be archived in a day or two as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 35#Vassula_Ryden) which ought to be consulted if one wishes to learn the full history of discussion about those sections. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I seriously doubt anyone will take the time to read it in detail, however I have highlighted a key statement of yours for others perusal. Unfortunately your suggestion to remove the RCC section has not been heeded by this group of editors, and I am certain that they will use "consensus" to override any attempts to remove it. Take note that Binksternet suspiciously appeared for the first time right when we were subjecting your proposal to remove the RCC section to vote. The editors have come up with sources to backup the documents; however most of the sources for the 1995 Notification are outdated, and do not take into consideration the CDF dialogue, the 2004 letter that resulted from it or even the 2007 letter. The sources of the 2007 letter itself are questionable. There continues to be an absence of updated secondary sources that summarize and discuss all the documents issued by the RCC and provide a synthesis as to what they actually mean. Arkatakor (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope the sources aren't questionable, it was agreed they were reliable at RSN as well: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

This recent edit: [1] appears to conform to the source. Why was it reverted? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it conforms to the source and should be reinstated. As Binkster said, it was useless as written. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I do need to come in and apologize for my little outburst which went alongside my revert. Jesus calls us to hate the sin and love the sinner, however hard that might be. I see so clearly what you people are doing with the Vassula page and you are probably greatly enjoying yourselves. The DRN discussions seem to show that nothing can stop what you are doing so I need get out of here (again) for the time being otherwise my patience is going to be strained even more.--Sasanack (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack: I hope you find the peace you are looking for. Rather than taking out my useful paragraph, twice, you might have added a paragraph about VR's works and followers; something positive. Note that your conflict of interest, your close connection with the topic, prevents you from such reversions in article space. The only reversions you should make will be against outright vandalism.
Orangemike: You have eviscerated the usefulness of the paragraph! Now it fails to say anything concrete. What is your reasoning? Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Cleaned up, I hope. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Orangemike: There are 4 documents that have been issued by the Catholic Church:

  1. 1995 Notification
  2. 1996 Notification (reminder of the 1995 notification)
  3. 2004 Letter From Ratzinger
  4. 2007 Letter From Levada
  • Document #3, published by Ratzinger, (now pope Benedict) the same Cardinal who issued the 1995 Notification, states that "a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God" supplied useful clarifications with regard to some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments". The letter by Ryden contains 5 questions by the CDF and its respective answers by Ryden. Ratzinger authorized its publication in future TLIG book releases.
  • In document #4, Levada reconfirmed this dialouge and its clarifications, as well as the 5 questions and answers, though re-iterated the validity of the 1995 notification, and went further to state that it was inappropriate to participate in meetings organized by Ryden, a somewhat contradictory statement to Ratzinger's letter which stated to consult the Bishops first.
  • Not all the documents listed above are being used in the article. They have instead been handpicked by a group of users who have deliberately excluded document #3 as they are strongly against the inclusion of any mention of the the CDF dialogue. They also make it a point to omit point 2 in document #4, which also mentions the dialogue. However they have used document #4 to make reference to other points mentioned in it. This illustrates blatant double standards. Noleander, a non involved editor, also tried to insert a small text mentioning the CDF dialogue, however was met with strong opposition from these users.

As a person who has taken the time to read the history between Ryden and the Church, including books about her by theologians of repute, I can state that in the light of a lot of missing key facts from the article, the current status of the article is now borderline defamatory. If you are keen on overseeing this article, I would recommend communicating with TransporterMan, who did an excellent job in researching the topic and mediating the DR based on his reading. He pointed out the ambiguity and self contradictory nature of some of those 4 documents and mentioned that it was important to have secondary expert sources that sumarize and offer a synthesis of ALL the 4 documents. A lot of sources being used to support the 1995 notification are out of date and do not take into account the 2004 letter or any documents that followed. The sources used to back up the 2007 letter are, as TransporterMan pointed out, questionable. Below is a key quote from TransporterMan in the DR I posted:

I've now thought about this for several days and my belief is that the Roman Catholic Church stance section cannot be based upon the four Vatican documents (that is, the 1995 and 1996 Notifications, the 2004 Ratzinger letter, and the 2007 Levada letter). While I believe that sourcing issues for these documents have not been adequately resolved, that issue plays no part in my feeling about this matter. The problem lies in the fact, first, that these are indisputably primary documents under Wikipedia policy and under that policy any interpretation or synthesis of them is absolutely forbidden. Second, I have read and re-read these documents, Hvidt's very useful but Wiki-unreliable analysis of them and history of Ryden's relations with the Vatican at cdf-tlig.org, Hvidt's interview with Ratzinger which touched on these issues, and a couple of other sources, and am still uncertain what exactly those four Vatican documents mean. They are extremely vague and, indeed, appear to be self-contradictory even within the same document, and can thus be read in a number of different ways. (Indeed, I keep re-reading them and thinking, "oh, THAT'S what they mean," only to decide a few minutes later that I'm wrong about my conclusion.) In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis. To set them out in their entirety would give this issue undue weight and, even if it did not, the situation is analogous to Wikipedia's position on scientific and medical research papers, whose use is disapproved because, among other reasons, they can easily be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreted by non-experts. For that reason I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it. Hvidt's book is one such secondary source, but it makes no reference to the 2007 Levada letter and appears to have been published before that letter could be taken into consideration by Hvidt and its use alone would, I fear, raise neutral point of view issues. It appears from the footnotes in Hvidt's book that there has been, at least in the past, a great deal of secondary writing about Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Those references, like Hvidt's book, may be too outdated and/or non-Wiki-reliable to provide a complete and neutral point of view, but the number of them gives me to believe that there have probably subsequently been at least a number of potential secondary sources written which take into consideration the 2007 letter. My opinion is, therefore, that all use of those four Vatican documents and the Hvidt book as references should be removed and that unless new Wiki-reliable secondary sources can be found for the section that it ought to be removed from the article altogether. The Wikipedia verifiability standard is that no information is preferable to inadequately or non-neutral information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Arkatakor (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot imagine that you'll be successful in removing any of the text which is currently in the article, text supported both by primary and secondary sources. What I can imagine is that you will be able to flesh out the article with information about Vassula's meetings, how many people have showed up to them (I understand 40,000 came to hear her in the Philippines), names of notable people have hosted Ryden, where she has been greeted by those friendly to her messages, and, most importantly, words from Hvit. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting that you mention Hvidt. Have you seen the treatment of his work in the cdf-tlig discussion? Also take note that some RSN commentators were also surprised by this. Arkatakor (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no point in bringing up past debates like this, see WP:STICK. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant Hvit as an attributable opinion on Ryden, not Hvit as a supposed expert on the inner workings of the Vatican, which he is not. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet: RE: "not Hvit as a supposed expert on the inner workings of the Vatican, which he is not." - Actually he is exactly that. See his useful but non wiki usable account of his interview with Ratzinger. Arkatakor (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is done with Hvidt's writing should not be in any way an attempt to say the CDF approves of Ryden's writings, which they have repeatedly said they do not, the latest being in 2007—after the supposedly positive dialog between Ryden and CDF. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The link supplied is useful as a first-person account of Hvidt's activities on behalf of Ryden (soliciting church officials, arranging private audiences, delivering books, taking photos, advising on and participating in discussions, etc.) and unfortunately further serves to establish his massive conflict of interest in the matter. Any material from his Oxford book placed in the Supporters section should be careful to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet: "RE: Hvidt's writing should not be in any way an attempt to say the CDF approves of Ryden's writings". We have already had this discussion. Read my comment dated 18:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC) in the archived DR.

@LuckyLouie: RE: "Hvidt's activities on behalf of Ryden (soliciting church officials, arranging private audiences, delivering books, taking photos, advising on and participating in discussions, etc.) and unfortunately further serves to establish his massive conflict of interest in the matter". This discussion has already been had. Hvidt's source has been approved as an RS by RSN commentators. Take note in particular Despayre's point:

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.

as well as Fifelfoo's comment, specifically directed to you and IRWolfie:

The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling.

Your ongoing unbridled prejudice against any work / person supportive of Ryden is a cause of serious concern, considering your high level of participation in editing this article. Arkatakor (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The claims under consideration at that time were that the meeting took place. Reliability is dependent on what you want to do with the source, and so far you haven't proposed anything, so let's not worry about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not change your comments after I have replied as you did here: [2]. See WP:REDACTED. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

1996 Notification

@LuckyLouie: Could you provide a full quote of the paragraph that speaks of the 1996 notification from Joe (March/April 2011). "Heaven's Stenographer: The 'Guided' Hand of Vassurla Ryden"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"In the mid-1990s, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued two notices of concern about Ryden. The first came in 1995, pointing out “several negative elements and errors.” It requested that bishops refuse to give her the opportunity to spread her questionable ideas within their dioceses and asked them not to treat her writings or speeches as “supernatural.” The following year, another notification encouraged priests to “exercise serious spiritual discernment” regarding Ryden’s messages, declaring that they must be considered merely “private meditations” and not divine revelations. However, some of her Catholic supporters observe that the church does not completely discount her teachings, and the publications of her organization, the American Association for True Life in God, have obvious Catholic trappings (“Vassula” 2010; Tokasz 2004)." If you wish to add the bit about the supporters beliefs in the Vassula_Ryden#Supporters section, I would not object, but I think we'd all prefer some additional objective sources to help establish it as a notable minority view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that the words "following a series of declarations from Rydén's supporters alleging that the Notification was not a valid document" simply do not appear in your source. Also take note that Joe Nickel is not a subject matter expert on Church matters, hence I don't see how the aforementioned text should be in the Church's stance section. Arkatakor (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The Vatican/CDF statements themselves exist as primary sources, so I think most reasonable people will agree they were actually issued and are not fabricated. In addition, we have Nickell in combination with various newspaper accounts as secondary sources to support that the Vatican did issue a series of statements regarding Ryden and that these statements were generally viewed as being negative. Regarding the sentence concerning "a series of declarations from Rydén's supporters", I have no idea where that's sourced to, but since it's from an old version of the article, maybe somebody else can identify the source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the editor who narrated and inserted this unsourced claim is MLPIO a previous COI editor that also hosted infovassula.ch, a critical website of Ryden. I have not checked the history though. I have proceeded to remove it until a valid source can be found to backup that claim. Arkatakor (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We hold every contribution to the article here: [3]. You can check to see who added it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed text - Puffery and also a direct copy and paste from a source

I removed this text: [4] because it sounds incredulous and non-encyclopedic. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My text was an excerpt from Hvidts book, an approved RS for its claims. Furthermore this supportive text was in the Supporters section (a section I never approved of). I suggest you re-insert it promptly. Arkatakor (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Your edit was also an unambiguous copyright violation. Do not insert this text into the article again. I think all of Arkatakor's edits need to be looked over for copyright violations, see my sandbox: User:IRWolfie-/sandbox#Articles_1_through_5. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-COI theological sources

An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion by Clemens Cavallin [5] analyzing Ryden's writings might be useful as an independent view. Unlike Hvidt, the author is a scholar not directly involved in promoting Ryden (although I can't be certain of that, I'm guessing Cavallin is independent, since tlig.org would not support his analysis of Ryden's sexualized relationship with Jesus). There's also secondary coverage of Cavallin's article available in the University of Bergen newspaper. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your treatment of Hvidts work continues to astound me. It seems that you are still unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hvidts book is mutually exclusive of his support of Ryden. See my comment dated 15:43, 9 July 2012. Arkatakor (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing astounding at all about advising extreme caution, e.g. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WEIGHT) when inclusion of the opinions of an active promoter and manager of Ryden are being discussed. It's just common sense. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Potential sources

Here are a few I turned up, but I'm sure there are more. Some focus on Ryden exclusively and some only mention her in passing. (Note: Many public libraries offer online access to LexisNexis Express via remote login using your library card number. If your local or university library has a website, check it out.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Popular Christian mystic comes to Montreal in June: But Vatican has criticized her 'messages from Jesus' The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), May 13, 1996, Monday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A4, 466 words, HARVEY SHEPHERD; THE GAZETTE
  • Age of secularism is about to end, mystic proclaims: Sees outpouring of spirituality The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), June 9, 1996, Sunday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A4, 525 words, HARVEY SHEPHERD; THE GAZETTE
  • City priests want evangelist boycott; Church leader aims to stop Catholics hearing of Greek's 'visions' Evening Times (Glasgow), September 8, 2000, Pg. 11, 723 words, Exclusive By Gordon Thomson
  • Mystic message at prayer meeting The Irish Times, October 21, 1996, CITY EDITION; HOME NEWS; Pg. 7, 489 words, By ALISON O'CONNOR
  • U.S. cathedral cancels speaker who claims to talk with God, Jesus Associated Press Worldstream, January 10, 2006 Tuesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 272 words
  • Passing out with Vassula;   Greek Orthodox Catholic healer puzzles audience Belfast Telegraph, September 25, 1997, 678 words
  • FIFTH COLUMN RELIGION Jack Kapica examines the highly touchy issue of the Virgin Mary's status The Globe and Mail (Canada), September 18, 1991 Wednesday, 725 words, JACK KAPICA; GAM
  • Appearances can be downright deceptive The Times (London), February 11, 2006, Saturday, FEATURES; Pg. 76, 1124 words, Simon Caldwell
  • Church packed for 'miracle' The Ottawa Citizen, June 19, 1993, Saturday, FINAL EDITION, RELIGION; Pg. C5, 467 words, JULIA ELLIOTT; CITIZEN
  • Mystic Called Divine Prophet Or Con Artist, Catholic churches issue warning before S.F. visit - The San Francisco Chronicle. Don Lattin, Saturday, December 14, 1996 [6]
  • A Divided Message : Spirituality: To her followers worldwide, Vassula Ryden is a faithful purveyor of communications from Jesus and Mary. But theologians question credibility. - Los Angeles Times. April 29, 1995. Larry B. Stammer. [7]

Here are more sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • François-Marie Dermine (January 23, 2008): "Vassula Rydén: le ragioni della Chiesa" (in Italian) and "Vassula Rydén: the reasons of the Church" (in English, also available here). Dermine is the author of one of the first few books critical of Ryden, one that we already use as a reference in the article: Vassula Rydén: indagine critica (Vassula Rydén: critical inquiry). This 2008 article was written by Dermine for the now-defunct website of Maria Laura Pio. It is an update on the Ryden situation. Because its author is an acknowledged expert on the subject, it can be used as a reliable source. Dermine says that the Catholic Church's position on Ryden has been and is still "substantially negative". He explains why it might be that the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic positions are that Ryden does not receive messages from divine entities. He lays out how Ryden has cancelled some messages, hidden others, and how she and her staff have edited many of them. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Marie-France James (1992): Le phénomène Vassula: étude critique: critères, méthode, expertise, discernement. ISBN 2723304450. This book is perhaps the earliest critical look at Ryden. It was cited by Jean-Claude Breton in 1994 and by François-Marie Dermine in 1995. This book is listed by WorldCat as one of the five most widely held works about Ryden. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ingerlise Provstgaard (1995): "An analysis of Vassula Rydén's Jesus". Provstgaard holds a unique viewpoint as a woman who has experienced automatic writing herself, but this writing was revealed to be the Devil, not a superior divine being as she was led to believe. She wrote a book about the experience by the name of With A Guided Hand. Upon hearing about Ryden in late 1993, she studied the phenomenon and found disturbing similarities to her own experience. In this work she counters a supportive piece written by Exorcist Father Christian Curty OFM, Marseille; a piece in which Curty gives the positive definition of "hieratic writing" to the writing of Ryden. Provstgaard takes apart Curty's supposed proof to show he proved nothing. Provstgaard also compares Ryden's Jesus to the Jesus who showed himself through Saint Catherine of Siena in the 14th century, demonstrating that the two visitations have serious differences. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Constance Cumbey

Detroit attorney and activist Christian author Constance Cumbey wrote about Vassula Ryden, saying that in the 1990s (not later than 1994) Ryden failed a direct test of language when Cumbey spoke simple Arabic greetings to Ryden and Ryden said "what language is that?" Cumbey was testing Ryden's assertion, printed in her advance publicity, that she was fluent in four languages including Arabic. Cumbey denounced Ryden as a fake. The source is Combey's May 2006 blog: "Vassula Ryden – Dealing with a 'living saint' that ain't". Though the source is a blog, Cumbey's position as an acknowledged expert observer brings it credence as a reliable source.

Regarding the notional Arabic fluency, Ryden reported in 2000 that she "didn't speak the language". However, by 2011 she said she was fluent in Arabic. Cumbey's test was before or during 1994. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryden reportedly needed an Arabic translator in May 2005 [8].
Very interesting. The article clearly needs more criticism, but even if the person is an expert, it still has to be published in a place outside of a blog. Sgerbic (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should this section be deleted in its entirety?

During the DRN, it was proposed by User:Dominus_Vobisdu and seconded by User:Guy_Macon to have an RFC as to weather the Roman Catholic Church section should be deleted?Webwidget (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


This was following User:TransporterMan comments on all the documents pertaining to the Catholic Church section

I've now thought about this for several days and my belief is that the Roman Catholic Church stance section cannot be based upon the four Vatican documents (that is, the 1995 and 1996 Notifications, the 2004 Ratzinger letter, and the 2007 Levada letter). While I believe that sourcing issues for these documents have not been adequately resolved, that issue plays no part in my feeling about this matter. The problem lies in the fact, first, that these are indisputably primary documents under Wikipedia policy and under that policy any interpretation or synthesis of them is absolutely forbidden. Second, I have read and re-read these documents, Hvidt's very useful but Wiki-unreliable analysis of them and history of Ryden's relations with the Vatican at cdf-tlig.org, Hvidt's interview with Ratzinger which touched on these issues, and a couple of other sources, and am still uncertain what exactly those four Vatican documents mean. They are extremely vague and, indeed, appear to be self-contradictory even within the same document, and can thus be read in a number of different ways. (Indeed, I keep re-reading them and thinking, "oh, THAT'S what they mean," only to decide a few minutes later that I'm wrong about my conclusion.) In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis. To set them out in their entirety would give this issue undue weight and, even if it did not, the situation is analogous to Wikipedia's position on scientific and medical research papers, whose use is disapproved because, among other reasons, they can easily be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreted by non-experts. For that reason I believe that all discussion of the Roman Catholic Church's stance should be excluded from the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found which analyze it. Hvidt's book is one such secondary source, but it makes no reference to the 2007 Levada letter and appears to have been published before that letter could be taken into consideration by Hvidt and its use alone would, I fear, raise neutral point of view issues. It appears from the footnotes in Hvidt's book that there has been, at least in the past, a great deal of secondary writing about Ryden and the Roman Catholic Church. Those references, like Hvidt's book, may be too outdated and/or non-Wiki-reliable to provide a complete and neutral point of view, but the number of them gives me to believe that there have probably subsequently been at least a number of potential secondary sources written which take into consideration the 2007 letter. My opinion is, therefore, that all use of those four Vatican documents and the Hvidt book as references should be removed and that unless new Wiki-reliable secondary sources can be found for the section that it ought to be removed from the article altogether. The Wikipedia verifiability standard is that no information is preferable to inadequately or non-neutral information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


It's plain to see User:Arkatakor has initiated a RFC above regarding a different section and I dont mean to mix the conversation at all, if Hividt gets included under AttributePov is an entirely different matter.


Is the Roman Catholic Church section WP:PERFECT? If it is not, should it be deleted from the article until all of the story can be told?


This is a controversial religious WP:BLP see Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and Wikipedia by Ting Chen


Should the Roman Catholic Church section should be deleted? Webwidget (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

These sources are in addition to the San Francisco Chronicle piece that was already there. The section is improved such that TransporterMan's stated problems with it are no longer valid complaints. We have a handful of sources interpreting the Vatican's Notifications as quite negative for Ryden, and none saying they are neutral or mixed. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support deletion. For people new to this discussion, its important to point out that there are 4 Documents that have been released by the CDF of the Roman Catholic Church in the years 1995, 1996, 2004 and 2007 respectfully.
    • Upon reading all the documents, TransporterMan pointed out that some of them are self contradictory and ambiguous and that there was a lack of reliable and up to date secondary sources that offer an interpretation or synthesis of all the 4 documents combined.
    • Regarding the new sources that have been inserted in the last 24 days: The sources that cover the first 2 documents in the article do not take into account the latter 2. This is because these sources predate the latter 2 documents. This is important to point out because there had been developments since the first 2 documents have been released - notably the dialogue between Ryden and the CDF, which occurred between 2000 and 2004. According to some interpretations, the dialogue reached a positive but cautious conclusion with regard to the CDF's stance on Ryden.
    • An RS has been released by an expert by the name of Hvidt, that covers the first 3 documents (1995 to 2004) but does not cover the 4th (2007) as his book release predates it.
    • The 2 sources that cover the 2007 letter which Binksternet mentioned are, as TransporterMan pointed out, questionable (see closing comment of the DRN).
    • What is currently needed is an up to date secondary source written by a subject matter expert of the same caliber of Hvidt's work, with a respectable publishing house such as Oxford University Press, that offers a synthesis of all the 4 documents. Until such time that such material is around, I vote for the removal of this section. Arkatakor (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion Well sourced with primary and secondary sources. The comment by TransporterMan is woefully out of date, the section didn't contain secondary sources at the time. Also, I'm not sure why WP:PERFECT is being cited, it explicitly states: "A perfect Wikipedia article ... Is not attainable". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support deletion The crux of the issue is

In light of that, it is now my belief that no direct summary or abridged verbatim recitation of them can be undertaken without, or without implying, some degree of analysis or synthesis, and that is absolutely forbidden by the primary policy. Even stating the conclusion that no clear conclusion can be drawn from them requires analysis and synthesis

That said I cant see how this section can be told as half a story.

@IRWolfie, I should not have mentioned WP:PERFECT in regards to the section but in regards to the artcle

Given the impact and weight of this section and its bearing in the lede it makes the article far from WP:PERFECT Webwidget (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion - per WP:PERFECT and the remarks by Binksternet, Dominus and Wolfie. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion Read any of the WP:RS secondary sources cited in the article, with particular attention to press coverage. All of them note that statements regarding Ryden were in fact issued by the Vatican. All characterize the statements as negative. None of them characterize the statements as contradictory, ambiguous, or controversial. Rename the section "Vatican statements" if needed, but removing any mention of the statements is not a realistic option, and frankly I'm rather surprised that demands to "either say they were favorable or take them out altogether" are even being entertained here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral, at least for the nonce — I've had a couple of editors ask if I might be interested in taking another look at this question, but I've been having health (urgent, annoying, and time-consuming, but neither painful nor dangerous, having been promptly dealt with) and other real world issues for the last couple of weeks and haven't had much time to re-study the issue and have only been doing things on-Wiki that I can do in short gulps. Since this RFC goes for 30 days, I'll see what I can do, but cannot commit to do so for sure. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


I have been looking back through the edit history of this article and found the following

However, to date there continues to be confusion and apparent conflict with previous statements from the CDF. Many Catholic Clergy, including Bishops and Cardinals, have chosen to continue their support for Vassula Ryden and even promote TLIG. Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, in a statement he made to his Archdiocese dated June 2009, said regarding Vassula that:

Another matter of interest is her relationship with the Holy See. She enjoys cordial relations with many of the top officials at the Vatican who are anything but negative towards her. It is therefore reasonable to state categorically that as far as the Church is concerned Vassula poses no threat to the Catholic Faith whatsoever. Indeed the messages which are communicated through her are consistent with the Church's own call to repentance and a return to the basics of the faith - in particular the basic prayers such as the Rosary and other devotions once so common in Catholic family and parish spiritual life

The source is no longer available but found it printed on The Archdiocese of Durban website

As it is written in light of all 4 documents, would this then be appropriate to add in to the Church stance and is it an RS?

If it was added it would change my view to Oppose Deletion Webwidget (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: God's speed on your recovery. Hope things clear out for you - if you can't join in within the next month we understand completely; rest well.
@Everyone: I am aware of two up to date sources other than that of Hvidt that state that the outcome of the dialogue between Ryden and Ratzinger was positive. They are Chretiens Magazine (article not available online) and Stella Maris. While they are not ideal sources, they go to show that there are a lot of different interpretations out there of the Vatican documents / dealings with Ryden. Then there are also the 2 non-ideal sources that discount the 2004 dialogue only to focus on the 1995 notification and Levada's 2007 letter like those being used in the article (www.religionenlibertad.com and www.aciprensa.com) to back up the 2007 letter text in the article. These sources offer a different interpretation than the earlier 2 I mentioned. This is likely because, as TransporterMan pointed out, the documents in question can be interpreted in a different number of ways, and they have been by different secondary sources as I am pointing out here. Pitching in one's own interpretation of the story in the article (as has been done here) based on specifically chosen negative sources, such as those used to back the 2007 letter is not beneficial for the article as per WP:NPOV. Either include all the interpretations or include none. Personally I think including all might still end up making the section confusing hence its best to leave this section out until reliable and updated secondary sources can be found that offer a synthesis of all the 4 Vatican documents, not discounting any of them. Arkatakor (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering that Ryden's renown for the last two decades stems in large part from mass audiences coming to take part in prayer groups led by Ryden, wouldn't you think that the Vatican's message is extremely negative, the one that says "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden"? This is shatteringly negative. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are still missing the point - As mentioned in the last sentence of my previous post, I was speaking of a synthesis of all the 4 documents; not just the one document you quoted. Arkatakor (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No independent reliable sources report any "controversy" within the Vatican or interpret any of the Vatican statements as "positive". Apparently the only ones vigorously publicizing those offbeat interpretations are Ryden's own organization (tlig.org) or those closely connected with it [9]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes they do. Hvidt's book, an approved RS the contents of which you are well aware of as per this comment of yours, makes a statement which outlines the shifting of Vatican policy regarding Ryden. On page 119 of that book, which discusses Ratzingers 2004 letter which resulted from the 2000-2004 dialogue between Ryden and the CDF, it states:

The (1995) Notification had charged Catholic bishops with not allowing any space for the writings of Mrs. Rydeen in their diocese. Now, on the basis of the ‘‘useful clarifications’’ she has provided, following the dialogue, prayer groups inspired by her writings are allowed, as long as they follow the guidelines of the diocesan bishop.

The fact that Levada backtracked on his predecisors (Ratzinger's) policy by stating "it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryden" shows contradiction within the Vatican. This has been highlighted to you on several occasions, including in this section of the now archived DRN (see comment dated 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) which speaks of the aforementioned text from Hvidt's book). Arkatakor (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There was no backtrack. "it remains inappropriate ..." indicates consistency of approach. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hvidt proved only one thing: that his mind was already made up to be supportive of Ryden. Every uninvolved person has commented that the Vatican position has not shifted, not one tiny bit. Don't mistake a willingness to talk with approval. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Arkatakor, you argued for later "up to date" documents superseding earlier documents. Along those lines I argued that the latest word from the Roman Catholic leadership was profoundly negative. Aciprensa agrees, putting this in their headline: "Holy See reiterates that Catholics should not participate in meetings of Vassula Ryden". Religion Libertad also agrees with a negative outlook, saying that the canonization of Father Emiliano Tardif will probably fail because he was associated with Ryden—Tardif even made false statements in support of Ryden: false statements about the Notification not being signed and not being official, which the reporter says is demonstrably wrong.
As for the French Chretiens Magazine, all I know about are positive articles published in the early 1990s by Lucien Lombard who cannot be called a neutral reporter; he is a believer in and defender of Ryden. None of his articles in Chretiens Magazine are later than 1995, as far as I know. If you have an author, date and title of the article you are referring to, what are they?
The Stella Maris article from January 2011 is obviously a promotional puff-piece, not good journalism. I would never call it a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
@Binksternet: I agree and would go on further to say that the 95 notification, 96 Press Release and 2007 Letter read in isolation are not only shatteringly negative but is now having a meteoric impact in this article given their summary in the lede.

Regarding the 2007 letter, Cardinal Napiers news article states

the matter was confused anew by Cardinal Levada's 2007 statement which reaffirms the 1995 notification but totally ignores the 2004 statement.

he goes on to say

She enjoys cordial relations with many of the top officials at the Vatican who are anything but negative towards her.

As per my earlier comment, as it is written in light of all 4 documents, would this then be appropriate to add in to the Church stance and is it an RS? Webwidget (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. Your version sounds to me a little bit like this: The Vatican says that they like Ryden as a person but they have banned her doing anything in the way of large meetings or published writings, which is just about everything important to her.
It is trivial whether she enjoys good personal relations with leaders of the Holy See. The decisions they have made against her are staggeringly bad. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When the Church stance reads as being so staggeringly bad, why is it that these writings have received a Nihil obstat and an imprimatur and why would Cardinal Napier say

However the matter was confused anew by Cardinal Levada's 2007 statement which reaffirms the 1995 notification but totally ignores the 2004 statement.

If its all been negative and one sided as this article reads what is there to the matter to be "confused about" that in itself is implicit that there was a positive outcome to the 2004 "thorough investigation" by the CDF that Cardinal Leveda's 2007 statement "ignores".

When the RCC's stance does not mention the 2004 cdf-tlig dialogue, take note of the Nihil obstat and imprimatur and does not have anything from Cardinal Napier's news article it seems to me to be incomplete and have NPOV issues. Webwidget (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither the nihil obstat nor the imprimatur amount in any way to endorsement or approval. Nor do they represent the opinion of the Church as a whole, resting as they do on the authority of local bishops, which pales in comparison to the authority of the CDF. As does the authority of Cardinal Napier. The "positive outcome" you speak of had nothing at all to do with prophecies themselves, but with tangential matters concerning Ryden's marital status. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Webwidget, that's easy to answer. Felix Toppo, a Jesuit and the Bishop of Jamshedpur, India, granted Ryden's book True Life in God a nihil obstat in November 2005. Toppo knew there was an active Notification against Ryden but he decided to act against it. The nihil obstat was not granted by the Holy See or anybody connected with the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox central leadership. The nihil obstat basically okays the printing of the book in Toppo's jurisdiction—no more than that. It does not in any way undermine the Notification of the Holy See, coming as it does from outside of the CDF, from a person with much less authority. It does not give permission for Ryden to publish the book in other places around the world. Toppo's nihil obstat does not even endorse the supposed truth of the book; that is not what is meant by nihil obstat. However, in acting against the CDF Notification and in favor of Ryden, Toppo revealed himself to be a proponent of Ryden rather than a neutral observer.
Regarding the above story, which I gleaned from unreliable online sources discussing other unreliable sources [10][11][12], what parts of that do you wish to have in the article? It's not the 100% positive image you were probably thinking about. Whatever you choose to put in the article must be based on WP:Reliable sources. Good luck with that. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
@Binksternet:
Re.: > “Felix Toppo, a Jesuit and the Bishop of Jamshedpur, India, granted Ryden's book True Life in God a nihil obstat in November 2005. Toppo knew there was an active Notification against Ryden but he decided to act against it.

You are ignoring one major step: Between the Notification of October 1995 and the Nihil obstat of November 2005, there was the dialogue between the CDF and Vassula, that commenced in the year 2000 and was concluded by Cardinal Ratzinger's audience in November 2004, with a cautious but positive outcome: a verbal Nihil obstat and Imprimatur granted by Cardinal Ratzinger to the Work "True Life in God" under the reserve that the said dialogue be published into the same volume. This dialogue is effectively what led to the Nihil Obstat by Toppo. As Archbishop he has the authority vested in him to grant this Nihil Obstat which he has done in accordance with Canon Law. The Nihil Obstat has never been revoked nor has Toppo been censured for this action. Thanks to the efforts of certain editors however, the 2000-2004 dialogue and any information pertaining to it is being deliberately withheld from the article.
Re.: > The "positive outcome" you speak of had nothing at all to do with prophecies themselves, but with tangential matters concerning Ryden's marital status.

The only people you can mislead with that statement are those who are not duly informed. The CDF's five questions - as well as Ryden's replies, are clear and not limited to Vassula's marital status. The full dialogue is available in Ryden's books as per Ratzingers request as well as the link I provided.
"Re: The nihil obstat basically okays the printing of the book in Toppo's jurisdiction—no more than that. [...] It does not give permission for Ryden to publish the book in other places around the world."'
Catholic theology and moral is the same worldwide. Whatever the location in the world, a book is, or is not, without obstacle, and therefore can, or cannot, be printed. As soon as a work is granted with the Nihil obstat and the Imprimatur, this is valid universally, not just for the relevant diocese. Otherwise all Catholic spirtual books would begin with fifty pages stating each Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of each one of the 630 Catholic archdioceses and 2167 dioceses in the world. Arkatakor (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Oppose Deletion Very complicated issue and it took me a long time reading through these comments. Its difficult to give my opinion in clear terms, but I think that LuckyLouie's response is the clearest to my opinion. Sgerbic (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Deletion The issue is clearly relevant and sufficiently sourced. Deletion would violate NPOV. --Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Deletion The funny thing is that I see no good reason to delete, and plenty of good reasons to keep the section. The reasons to keep are succinct and easy to read, whereas, the reasons for deletion seem awfully cloudy, if not intentionally obfuscatory. And I agree that LuckyLouie made a very rational response that pretty much settled it for me. I see a WP:SNOWBALL.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Text in Supporters section relevant? - if so how can it be used?

Edit: Keeping the discussion current as I may contribute to it shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have some text I would like to insert into the Vassula Ryden article, under the Supporters section based on an excerpt of a book. The text in the book appears as follows:

The late Archbishop Franic of Split, for years the head of the Yugoslav Catholic Bishops’ Conference and an expert on mystical phenomena, wrote strongly in favor of Ryden. He expressed the astonishment shared by many theologians and church leaders who cannot understand how a normal woman who never received theological training can write down messages whose beauty and profundity stand out among contemporary spiritual writings.[1]

The book an approved RS on the RSN. I would like to know - how I can insert the information quoted above, without infringing on copyright policy? Do I reword the text? Do I say "Hvidt (the author) claims"? Whats the normal way to go about quoting a source? Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd want a more reliable source. The language given ("the astonishment shared by many theologians and church leaders who cannot understand how a normal woman who never received theological training can write down messages whose beauty and profundity stand out among contemporary spiritual writings") is grossly lacking in the requisite WP:NPOV, and indeed reads like an advertisement for Ryden. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That is, my warnings about copyright violations was removed as "harrasment": [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's quite OK to include something saying Franic was an ardent supporter, but the second sentence is sheer puffery and misleading (i.e. do "many" theologians and church leaders feel this way?). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Further Comments

@Orange Mike: The source, published by Oxford University Press, is as reliable as it comes. You can view its approval on the RSN here. I invite you to read the comments about Hvidt by the non involved editors on the RSN. Furthermore its in the "Supporters" section, hence I figured it could be used there. Arkatakor (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Hvidt's bias is already established, you could quote him directly. You cannot, however, paraphrase him in such a way as to make it sound like part of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Orange Mike:

Noted and thanks - I am still learning how to quote a source - I have come up with an alternative way of wording this:

Hvidt stated that the late Archbishop Franic of Split, for years the head of the Yugoslav Catholic Bishops’ Conference and an expert on mystical phenomena, wrote strongly in favor of Ryden. According to Hvidt, Franic expressed "astonishment" at being unable to understand how a "normal woman who never received theological training" can write down messages whose "beauty and profundity stand out among contemporary spiritual writings".[1]

Would the above be more acceptable?.

RE: "Since Hvidt's bias is already established" - I invite you to read the following part of Despayre's comment on the RSN. I have tried to contact Despayre but I believe he is either still on vacation or otherwise has a lot of backlog to catch up on, hence he is not responding. Anyway here is what he wrote on the RSN:

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.

Arkatakor (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your alternative wording is also a copyright violation. Copying and pasting in sources as you have done in never acceptable on wikipedia, except in the use of limited quotes. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All of your paraphrases boil down to efforts to insert into this article, in Wikipedia's voice, Hvidt's biased and partisan admiration for Ryden's works. History is full of people sound and solid in other fields, who display a blind spot (think Conan Doyle on fairies); and you seem unwilling to accept that just because Hvidt has fallen for Ryden's charms does not obligate us to do so here. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If Hvidt is to be brought into the article it must be in the form recommended by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. His otherwise reliable scholarship is undone by Ryden. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the feedback that this RfC has generated, in particular with regard to Hvidt, I have asked for the RSN commentators to give some input regarding Hvidts work as a source in this RfC.

@Orange Mike: Take note that I find your statement "just because Hvidt has fallen for Ryden's charms does not obligate us to do so here" rather questionable both with regard to Hvidt and Ryden. I will wait for input from either of the RSN commentators in this RfC before commenting further. Arkatakor (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment was solicited based on my involvement in the WP:RS/N thread regarding Hvidt's reliability for religious studies topics. Hvidt is reliable for religious studies topics, it is that simple. He's a religious studies scholar publishing in OUP. The suggested inclusion is undesirable to include for reasons unrelated to reliability, including unnecessary length, close-paraphrase, poor summary, poor weighting, and montage writing (ie: cherry-picking fragments to tell a new story). Most worrying is the one sentence lionisation of Franic. Compare to "According to Hvidt, Franic the Archbishop of Split and an expert on religious mysticism strongly favoured the quality and expression of the amateur Ryden's religious writings." Even then, I'm concerned about weight, because I doubt that Hvidt got dorothy dixing through OUP, and that this is entirely reliant on a two sentence throw-away and not connected with Hvidt's central argument regarding Ryden. When you get a reliable source, you have to respect it, and that means using and weighting the central argument of Hvidt and not cherry picking fragments out of it in order to tell your own story. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo:
Thank you for reminding everyone that Hvidt is an RS. This is not the first time I have solicited a reconfirmation for this from either you or Despayre. I hope your statement finally hammers the nails in the coffin with regard to Hvidt's work being "unreliable" on the grounds that he supports Ryden. The prejudice against Hvidt as an RS by this particular group of editors is staggering. I would not be surprised if it continues as soon as you leave this conversation as has already happened previously.
Regarding your concern of me cherry picking a supportive statement and ignoring the "central argument" - I will attempt to briefly summarize the content of that chapter in the book;
There are 8 pages that cover Ryden in Hvidts work. They cover an introduction to Ryden, how her alleged experience began, quotes from some of her messages, why she believes she was chosen for her mission, comparison between Ryden and other noteworthy historical mystics, including Joan of Arc. Then there are 2 paragraphs that cover a controversy section called Pro et Contra. I have quoted two sentences from this short section.
  1. I inserted the first sentence in a new "Controversy" section here (see after line 54).
  2. This first snippet was subsequently shifted to the Supporters section, even though Hvidts text was anything but supportive.
  3. Shortly after, it was removed completely by IRWolfie.
  4. I then tried to insert the paragraph under this discussion. So by the time you came in, only this one was being subject to discussion. The idea was to have both in the article.
I hope this assuage's your concerns with regard to my "cherry picking". I would be happy to quote the 2 paragraphs of Hvidts book in question for purposes of this discussion, as long as I do not infringe copyright in doing so. I feel its important that we find a way of inserting some parts of Hvidts relevant pro and cons text in this article, rewording or trimming them as necessary. Arkatakor (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Hvidt's book's central argument in a nutshell is, mainstream theological views to the contrary, he believes prophecy has never ceased, it is and has always been an essential part of Christianity to allow God "to intervene and guide his people onto the right path", and that Ryden is one contemporary example of what modern-day prophecy might look like. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed it because it was a blatant copyright violation. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No. This RfC clearly requires more input from more non-involved editors. I have re-worded the text under discussion and quoted parts of it so there should't be any copyright violation. If you feel that there are still copyright issues with this particular text, feel free to come up with suggestions in rewording it such that it the main points are still intact and copyright is not infringed rather than dismissing it altogether.
If its inserted with the other text I mentioned (which would also have to be reworded) it will allow for both the Pro et Contra part of Hvidts argument. If despite this, there are still concerns that I am inserting one side of the argument, then I would be happy to quote Hvidt's Pro and Contra section (its only 2 paragraphs) in this RfC for purposes of this discussion so we can all agree on what to insert such that the "main argument" is not overlooked. Arkatakor (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Your reword above is inadequate and still a copyright violation. I will say this plainly: never copy and paste content from sources unless it is as a quotation. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said in my previous post to you: if you feel that there are still copyright issues with this particular text, feel free to come up with suggestions in rewording it such that it the main points are still intact and copyright is not infringed rather than dismissing it altogether. Arkatakor (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Maria Laura Pio's critical website

The November 2010 Religion en Libertad article, "Se inicia la causa de canonización del famoso sacerdote taumaturgo Emiliano Tardif", gives the URL of a website dedicated to criticism of Ryden.

  • http://www.infovassula.ch/ "A critical website on Vassula Ryden & 'True Life in God'", by Maria Laura Pio, former follower of Ryden.

The website was taken offline in May 2012 by Pio after Ryden sued her a second time. The suit was about trademarks: Ryden's people said that infovassula must be given to Ryden because Vassula is a registered international trademark. Pio complained that her criticism website was not in trade, not for profit, and it was for criticism. However, she gave way to the legal pressure.

Note that Niels Christian Hvidt lends credence to Pio's website, quoting it as a source in his book, Christian Prophecy: The Post-Biblical Tradition, page 340.

I have found many cached pages of the defunct website. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The legal pressure appears to have gained some significant coverage. Perhaps it also has due weight for being discussed in the article itself edit: scratch that I couldn't find much coverage in reliable sources about the incident (perhaps it will feature in some books in the future and we can re-look at it). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There is not a whole lot of coverage, about the incident, not enough to support an article written about it, but even one reliable source is enough to mention it here. The Catholic World News article is plenty.
Here is an archived version of the URL that Hvidt cites in his book: http://web.archive.org/web/20050404224323/http://mypage.bluewin.ch/cafarus/tligchurchposition.htm
This is back when Pio used mypage.bluewin.ch as the website, before she moved it to infovassula. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am the former owner of www.infovassula.ch and I wanted to point out to the editors of this article that I started the critical website on Vassula in 2002 and not 2010 as reported in the article. I also wanted to point out that after closing the website, the Italian assocation GRIS - which studies religious phenomena and whose President is Fr. Dermine, also mentioned in the article - contacted me and asked for ownership of the contents of my website, which were transferred to them and which they have put again online on a new website: www.pseudomystica.info. On that website you will find a letter from the GRIS President explaining the reasons. I hope this information will be useful.--178.199.11.81 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see on the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine that some of your early website pages were captured (saved and stored) in 2003, so your start date of 2002 is credible. The new website hosted by GRIS may turn out to be useful. Thank you for the update! Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

POV Article?

This article is a bit biased toward the opposing view, if you ask me. This woman actually has had a fair amount of dialogue and acceptance from Christian leaders at the highest levels of authority (in addition to some denunciations and accusations of heresy), but this article doesn't strongly imply that. She is a periphery figure, but by no means a pariah.

It especially fails to make clear anything about what she publicly teaches that is substantively HERETICAL, although she has been denounced as that by some Orthodox leaders.

The keynote of her teachings, as I see it, is Christian unity and ecumenism, and her main rallying cry is the celebration of the Easter holiday on one common date, worldwide. That ought to be made clear from the outset. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The unflattering tone you see here is the result of a severe correction to fix a huge problem: Ryden fans had made it into a hagiography. In searching out the sources to find the truth, me and several other editors found that Ryden is indeed denounced "at the highest levels" (the Vatican), though she publishes books and tracts and blog entries with contrary information. I think this article is fair enough, though I agree that it could hold more information about her views, which are also criticized where they stray from standard Catholic beliefs. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Wikipedia's page on Vassula for quite a time but I have just noticed the balanced view above followed by Binksternet's response. Just a reminder that I'm a promoter of Vassula so those who wish to assume everything I say must be exaggerated or false should stop reading here.

Binksternet writes, "The unflattering tone you see here is the result of a severe correction to fix a huge problem: Ryden fans had made it into a hagiography". Whether earlier versions of the page had become a 'hagiography' can be argued about but the current page is now most certainly unbalanced in the opposite way. What is particularly sad is that the 'legalistic' approach of the editors has simply removed crucial areas of information about Vassula which prevent the page serving any purpose apart from being a few scribbles that inform people that Vassula is religious and is not a pop singer or a sports person!

The whole saga of the editing of the earlier Vassula pages illustrate in a very clear way that Wikipedia cannot deal with controversial topics that are not widely known about. This is because the 'rules' of Wikipedia can be used by Wikipedia experts to block large areas of information that should be included if the topic is to be properly represented. Fortunately for Wikipedia, most topics are not particularly controversial and so most Wikipedia articles include vast amounts of vital information that are not challenged by editors. I think that if Wikipedia, in general, was subject to the draconian edits made to Vassula's page, the overall size of the encyclopaedia would probably be a tenth of its current size! Sasanack (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Position of the Church

When the Church "invites all the faithful not to regard Mrs Vassula Ryden's writings and speeches as supernatural" and the Church's judgment on alleged revelations includes "confirmed to not be supernatural", how else is a Catholic to interpret the former as anything but the latter? Oct13 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The article already contains text from the Vatican statement. No original research is required to clarify its meaning. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Nobody here should try to argue the case on its merits. The only thing worth discussion is how reliable sources interpret Ryden. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And reliable sources have done just that. See my post dated 08:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC). Arkatakor (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014

Incluiding the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat received in November 2005

Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat

In 28th November/2005, Vassula received the official "Imprimatur" (this means it can be printed and read by Roman Catholics) and "Nihil Obstat" (this means there are no objections for Roman Catholics to read) for the 12 volumes of True Life in God from the Bishops of Lipa, Ramon C. Arguëlles, DD,STL and the Bishop of Jamshsedpur, Felix Toppo, S.J.,DD.

In Brazil, the mains Bishop of Bagi, Dom João Evangelista Martins Terra, in Brasília, autenticated them.



Not done. No supporting sources for this assertion. Also, the Vatican never published anything about it—they never retracted their earlier position. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bruno.baptista1 (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC) This is not a Vatican Page! Vatican can be wrong too. They were in Fatima's Prophecies for years. Wikipedia is a information page based on facts and not on personal opinions as Vatican's opinion . Vassula had received the "Imprimatur" and "Nihil Obstat" from the Bishops of Lipa, Ramon C. Arguëlles and the Bishop of Jamshsedpur, Felix Toppo. If you consider to include the Notification (that is a personal opinion from Vatican) you must consider the imprimatur gave to the books. You are omitting important fact about Vassula, considering only your own opinion about her Prophecies.

You must aldo include the conversation between Vassula and the CDF. Please, see releted information about it:

http://www.tlig.org/en/testimonies/churchpos/cdf2005/grechanswr/ http://www.tlig.org/en/testimonies/churchpos/cdf2005/dinoia/ http://www.tlig.org/en/testimonies/churchpos/cdf2005/arguelles/ http://www.tlig.org/downloads/en/cdf.pdf http://www.tlig.org/en/testimonies/churchpos/cdf2005/larsletter/ http://www.cdf-tlig.org/report.pdf http://www.defending-vassula.org/cdf-prospero

Once, you ignore these links I will appel to the court bacause of the material damage to the integrity of Vassula you have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno.baptista1 (talk • contribs)

First read WP:No legal threats. You will be blocked from editing if you make legal threats on Wikipedia.
Second, those sources in your links are not reliable because they come from Ryden. This article will be written based on reliable WP:Secondary sources.
Finally, it is laughable to think that the statements of the Vatican are "personal opinion". Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Bruno.baptista1, your sources are primary sources, not wikipedia suitable. What you may not be aware of is that there are reliable sources that back up Ryden's dialogue with the CDF, even from within the Vatican. See my comment dated 08:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC) in this discussion. Arkatakor (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ChristianProphecy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vassula_Rydén/Archive_2&oldid=1137294152"