Talk:Vassula Rydén/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cardinal reviews Vassula's book

Cardinal Prospero Grech, who gave a meditation to the Cardinals who assembled in the Vatican to elect Pope Francis last year has reviewed a recently published book by Vassula. The review has appeared in the January 2014 edition of the well respected magazine 'Inside the Vatican'. A copy of the article is on the magazine website at https://insidethevatican.com/tag/vassulla-ryden

The Cardinal's review is significant as it was he who acted as an intermediary between the Vatican and Vassula in its investigation of her writings. His review also discusses the main writings of Vassula. Unfortunately, several Wikipedia editors removed references to that investigation (details of which can be found at http://www.cdf-tlig.org) from the Vassula Wikipedia page. I am assuming that those editors will also block the above information but in case I am misjudging them I am mentioning the matter here on the talk page.Sasanack (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the anonymous (?) insidethevatican.com article basically reiterates what our WP article already says: the CDF investigated her and Cardinal Levada confirmed that the original Notification was still in force. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP page refers at length to the Notifications of 1995 and 1996 but says nothing about the investigation instigated by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. The investigation, which involved Cardinal Grech and to which he refers in his review, was completed in 2004 with a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger and a meeting between himself and Vassula in his office (with a widely publicised photo). The WP page chooses to block all this information.

The letter of Cardinal Levada in 2007 had nothing to do with the above investigation.

For the doubters, the review of Vassula's book (Heaven is Real but so is Hell) published in the Inside the Vatican magazine includes Cardinal Grech's authorship - see http://www.tlig.net/InsidetheVatican.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanack (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your link directly contradicts what you have said, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Sasanack (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It is possible that I mis-inferred what you meant by "the above investigation". We have sources for before and after your reported 2001 meeting. 2001 has no apparent significance. Even your cardinal link above does not mention it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Cardinal states: "Subsequent to a request by Vassula, the CDF decided to enter into dialogue with her and formulated some questions regarding her and her messages. I personally wrote to her in the name of the CDF. Her response was precise and sincere, so it was thought that the CDF was satisfied. The then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, gave her an audience, and the correspondence was interpreted as permission to leave it to the bishops to decide."

The dialogue to which the Cardinal refers (and with which he was personally involved) began in 2001 and the meeting between Cardinal Ratzinger and Vassula to which he refers was in 2004.Sasanack (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought you said investigation, now a dialogue. She contacted them, they replied back. Calling that "an investigation" seems to be stretching it. Why are you mentioning it? It had no long term significant as evident from the 2007 statement, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not quibble about 'investigation' or 'dialogue'. The dialogue took place and Cardinal Ratzinger's invitation to Vassula to his office at the end of the dialogue speaks for itself. It might not impress you, IRWolfie, but with respect, Wikipedia is meant to be a source of information, not a court of law. The dialogue of 2001/2004 has been the only dialogue between Vassula and the Vatican and the apparent determination of some to block information about it from the WP Vassula page is, I think, quite a significant indication of its importance. Sasanack (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternately, Ryden's TLIG organization are anxious to portray the CDF's scrutiny of Ryden as indicating some kind of relationship and having a huge importance that it doesn't actually have. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to see a recognition there are two sides to this matter. Should not WP include positive interpretations of the events as well as the negative? The anti-Vassula editors appear to have a total stranglehold on the page at the moment. Incidentally, I don't know who wrote the above comment which is unsigned. How can an unsigned entry be made on WP? Was it made by a WP employee or administrator?? Sasanack (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, must have missed a tilde on the previous sig. Just plain old human error. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As IRWolfie pointed out, Ryden/TLIG initiated an exchange of correspondence then later asked for and got an appointment to see a cardinal. (You may want to call that a "dialogue" that "speaks for itself" but you'd need some multiple reliable independent sources rather than a sympathetic review of her new book to back it up.) The upshot is that there was no change in the Vatican's stance on the subject, so it's not notable or significant. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is very difficult to respond to the above comment because it comes across to me as so unreasonable! First of all, I have not suggested that the dialogue of 2001/2004 changes the 'official' position of the Vatican regarding Vassula. The letter of Cardinal Levada from 2007 certainly is a negative one but it cannot change the significance of the ONLY dialogue that has taken place between Vassula and the Vatican. It is quite wrong to dismiss this very important investigation - and yes, it was an investigation as the questions asked of Vassula were on the matters which had concerned the Vatican from the beginning. As Cardinal Grech points out in his review, Vassula's responses were well received by Cardinal Ratzinger and it was because of that (and only that!) that he agreed to invite her formally to meet him and to be photographed happily at her side in his office. If you think that Cardinal Ratzinger would agree to that while having negative concerns about her then you have no understanding of Cardinal Ratzinger! The whole dialogue can be viewed at: http://www.vassula-cdf.org/clarificationsNU/index.html To block any reference to this crucial dialogue from the WP page because you view it as 'insignificant' is almost unbelievable. Sasanack (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your personal appreciation of the importance of a photo-op with the Pope is warming, but it does not rise to significance for an encyclopedia article. The Pope is regularly photographed with those who are in conflict with him. It is not a signal of support. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to post a link to one photograph of Pope Benedict posing with a non-political figure with whom he was in conflict.Sasanack (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to bring reliable sources showing a significant viewpoint that we can share with our readers? Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

They already have been but they have been rejected outright by yourself and others citing all sorts of inconsistent frivolous excuses. As mentioned by the RSN commentators, (read Fifelfoo's comment) "The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling". I do not delude myself into thinking I can ever change your mind, I am simply making this statement for uninformed newcomers to this article's discussion page, lest they be misled that there are no credible sources to back up this event. Ryden's dialogue with the CDF has now even made it to the front page of insidethevatican.com. The occurrence of the CDF dialogue is further backed up by Niels Hvidt's WP:RSN approved Oxford University Press source, as mentioned in my link to this RSN discussion. Arkatakor (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, following the anti-editors removal from the main article of my properly referenced information on the Vatican's dialogue with Vassula, I have to leave it at that. There really seems to be nothing in the WP system able to correct a situation whereby a group of editors, determined to maintain a distorted WP page, can do so with so little effort. They just have to say of any insertion they don't like, "not significant" ! Sasanack (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti-editors? Sasanack, the editors who are commenting here spend 99% of their time editing other articles. Your edits are simply against policy and are an attempt to spin the interactions with the RC, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryden's dialogue of the CDF, a truth whom so many editors in here have adamantly fought to keep out of this article, regardless of even RSN approved sources, is now on the front page of the "Inside the Vatican". Arkatakor (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you stop spamming this link? Sasanack already provided this link at the start. Second Quantization (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For your information, my post of 07:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) was a link to the front page of insidethevatican.com, not the article itself. This further highlights its importance. Seems this is inconvenient for you for some reason. Arkatakor (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be useful if I mention here that user IRWolfie who has been heavily involved in editing the Vassula page now calls himself Second Quantization. I wonder why he did that? Sasanack (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Grech's review of Ryden's new book says that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have both been "hostile" to Ryden. Grech says that he is "no expert in mystical phenomena" but nevertheless he tells his opinion about Ryden's messages, saying the origin of Ryden's messages is still unknown, but if they are not from an external spirit, if they are simply the meditations of one woman, then they are useful because they have brought many people closer to God. In that light, Grech is definitely not affirming the Vassula story which is, of course, that Ryden receives her messages from spirits such as God, Jesus, Mary and Daniel. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Grech also reaffirms the Church stance that 'the (CDF) published a "notification”, warning bishops, clergy and the faithful against certain aspects of her writings, as there were doubts about the authenticity of these revelations' and goes on to say in the same breath "Her response was precise and sincere, so it was thought that the CDF was satisfied." I believe this adds further importance in that Grechs comments come after Levada's of 2007 I propose something to the above effect be added to the chronology of events in the Roman Catholic Church's stance so that a complete account is given Webwidget (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• In an effort to reach some sort of compromise, I have added a use of this primary source that is consistent with the secondary sources, which of course don't mention this claimed meeting, Second Quantization (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"He had thought the CDF was satisfied", this is not what the article says, it reads "so it was thought that the CDF was satisfied" also the meeting is not claimed, it is stated as matter of fact "he then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, gave her an audience, and the correspondence was interpreted as permission to leave it to the bishops to decide." Webwidget (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The attempt at compromise is laudable, but since Grech doesn't represent the CDF (he only represents his opinion as a staunch Ryden supporter) the added material is better situated in the "Supporters" section. And one person's interpretations of the intentions of an entire committee can't be related as fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it breaks the specific pieces related to CDF notifications out of sequence, so it breaks the flow of text. Second Quantization (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very difficult to remain calm when dealing with ignorant comments like the above ...

1. Prospero Grech, Augustinian professor-emeritus of several Roman universities and long-serving consultor to the Vatican's doctrinal office. http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/14th-january-2012/4/the-churchs-new-princes

2. Cardinal Grech knew almost nothing about Vassula until he was given the task of communicating with her on behalf of the CDF in 2002. He is not a 'staunch supporter' of Vassula. He was simply asked to review her book and spoke honestly about what he knew. Sasanack (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In this series of edits, SQ writes the following new text:

Cardinal Prosper Grech said he communicated to Ryden in the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith in some period after 1997. He had thought the CDF was satisfied, but...

I agree with the formulation "he had thought the CDF was satisfied" because it is Grech saying "so it was thought", which is a passive voice wording that fails to identify anybody else who might agree with the idea that the CDF was satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sasanack, you are going beyond the sources again and trying to push an angle that the Church is sympathetic despite notifications being fully in force. Attempts to soften the actual position of the church more than it actually is constitutes POV pushing. If I thought the Church actually was sympathetic towards Ryden I would not hesitate in changing the article, but that is not reality. Second Quantization (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Grechs comments?

Should Cardinal Grech's comments go in the "Supporters" section or does it belong in the chronology of the "Roman Catholic Church's stance"? Webwidget (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

References

This is a premature RfC considering we haven't even discussed the issue here. Second Quantization (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Grech is not a supporter of Ryden. He communicated with her for the CDF, he reviewed her recent book, and in the review he evaluated her messages as purely personal, that is, not coming from the entities that Ryden says they come from (God, Jesus, Mary, etc.) Grech can hardly be called a supporter if his most positive stance is a somewhat sympathetic but passive one. He is not actively promoting Ryden. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Grech having a page devoted to his article at tlig.org under the "Testimonies" tab must have misled me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see Grech under the Testimonies tag. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, Grech's position as a sub-item within the Testimonies category on the main menu bar must have mislead me. [1] Testimonies--»Church Position--» Modifications by the CDF (2005)--» Fr Prospero Grech, OSA - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the RFC to be more generic as where the info should go is only one point, it remains that there is a key piece of information stated in this article that I believe should go in the chronology of the Churches stance and should be the last paragraph on it for the time being as it is published in 2014, the previous paragraph relates to 2007

"the CDF decided to enter into dialogue with her and formulated some questions regarding her and her messages. I personally wrote to her in the name of the CDF. Her response was precise and sincere, so it was thought that the CDF was satisfied. The then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, gave her an audience, and the correspondence was interpreted as permission to leave it to the bishops to decide." Webwidget (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Grech's comment is not going to end the section with a hopeful note. There is no hopeful note to this story. The Notification is still in force. The CDF has not revisited the case to make a new determination. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is reported to have transpired is that for a time "it was thought that the CDF was satisfied" and that "Cardinal Ratzinger, gave her an audience", these are 2 facts, what is the problem with adding them? Webwidget (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

He means he thought, it's his opinions, but they have no significance since the CDF was not satisfied. Second Quantization (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You are interpreting his comments, if there is a secondary source to that effect I would see your point Webwidget (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one. The CDF still has a Notification against Ryden. Grech does not support Ryden's version of where her messages come from. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Grech does not support Ryden's version of where her messages come from make it unbiased to include his comments that there was a period where "it was thought that the CDF was satisfied" and that following that dialouge "The then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, gave her an audience, and the correspondence was interpreted as permission to leave it to the bishops to decide." Webwidget (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"It was thought" is not specific. It could mean anybody, including Ryden. It does not necessarily mean there was a short period of time when the Vatican said they were "satisfied" with Ryden, that she could go find a sympathetic bishop or two, for instance in the Philippines. Instead, it could mean that Ryden was apparently satisfied with the question-and-answer sequence, and that she jumped to conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It could mean anybody, but in the previous sentence Grech says "I personally wrote to her in the name of the CDF.", Grech is talking in historical context about the CDF being satisfied knowing full well what happened next and goes on to state this that Ratzinger's successor, Levada "reiterated that the Notification was still in force.". The comment that the CDF was thought to be satisfied for a time is reinforced by how Grech ends his article "Had this book been published earlier, after Vassula’s response to the questions put to her by the CDF, perhaps the decision to accept her and her messages would have been left to the local bishops and parish priests to decide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwidget (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The basic point that needs to be highlighted is that Cardinal Grech's article confirms that the CDF dialogue with Vassula took place. The WP page chooses to hide that information despite its completion being marked by a formal letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, available at: http://www.tlig.org/images/global/article/ratz.jpg and a photographed meeting of Vassula with Cardinal Ratzinger. If WP has problems 'allowing' the above information to be inserted into the article, then it would be better the whole section on the 'Roman Catholic stance' be removed as a balanced editor has earlier suggested. The more underlying problem with all this is best illustrated by the recent removal of my insertion of Grech's words, "and found her responses precise and sincere". The excuse given was the words are "promotional"! Is it not obvious that this mistaken mindset lies behind virtually all the editing of recent months and years? Despite the mass of negative insertions that are happily allowed on the page, any insertion that happens to be positive is deemed to be "promotional" ! Sasanack (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It’s puzzling that the fact of the dialogue which took place at the Vatican (CDF) - as reported (Inside the Vatican magazine - 2014) by a Vatican based Cardinal who was part of that dialogue process - is not deemed relevant to be referenced in the Church Stance section. The fact that: ‘the CDF decided to enter into dialogue with her’ (Rydén) is notable as Rydén is Greek Orthodox and such a dialogue with a non-Catholic is a rare event at the CDF, as is the audience given Rydén with Ratzinger, the then Prefect of the CDF. Why not include these facts in the article to provide a clear context & chronology of events?

Grech’s words –"Had this book been published earlier, after Vassula’s response to the questions put to her by the CDF, perhaps the decision to accept her and her messages would have been left to the local bishops and parish priests to decide." – are significant, coming from the Vatican milieu from which he writes, he suggests that had the timing been different, there may well have been a different outcome... Why not include this ? Siamsiocht (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that recruiting new users amongst your followers to influence an outcome is forbidden per WP:MEAT. Consensus is decided by strength of argument, not numbers, Second Quantization (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've started an WP:ANI post related to this incident considering the vote stacking: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#MEAT_at_Vassula_Ryden. Second Quantization (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am copying the same response to the two places (now three!) this matter seems to have been placed. Please understand that I do not understand the complex 'machinery' of Wikipedia! This matter is being raised by 'Second Quantization' who, until a few weeks ago operated under the name 'IRWolfie'. Why he has chosen to change his name seems very strange to me to say the least! The recent attempted edits to the Vassula page are as a result of the appearance, in January, of an important review of a recent book by Vassula in a long established magazine, Inside the Vatican. The review was written by a Cardinal who played an important role in the Vatican's only dialogue with Vassula. A group of editors have consistently blocked reference to this dialogue on the WP page. The result of the relentless editing of the Vassula page by the same group of editors has resulted in a ridiculous collection of negative material with almost no positive material. Sasanack (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kinda baffled here seeing my name in a post outside the Talk page where I posted yesterday – as a relative newbie to Wikipedia (tried making a few edits a couple of years ago, but found the formatting/editing text a bit beyond me – more complex than I’d figured!) – thought I’d maybe give it a try again when I saw that ‘Inside the Vatican’ article. Saw the article briefly referenced in the Rydén article hence my visit to the Talk page where I posted for the 1st time ever adding my 2 cents… (how to actually post in the Talk page took me a while to figure out!) Appreciate I’m new to this but thought that Wikipedia was open to anyone to volunteer… will hang in here & hopefully learn more! ☺ Siamsiocht (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Are Grech's comments regarding CDF dialogue relevant to the article? Webwidget (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

handwriting analysis- undue weight to non standard interpretations

We have full paragraph on the works of one analyst to observes that the "spirit" writing " denotes a lack of freedom, a constraint, with a strong restraint of movement. " and then falsely leaves the impression that this is because Ryden is "fighting" the claimed spirit possession rather than the rather obvious interpretation that it is constrained because she is deliberately attempting to write in a way that is different from her natural writing style. - spiritual possession or deliberate fakery, which is most likely interpretation? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat my comment from TRPOD's Talk page: at least part of the Lombal material is sourced to "The Vassula Engima", published by Trinitas. The other part is sourced to something called "I saw Vassula write: Scientific analysis of True Life in God" by Philippe Coron and offered by a publisher with only one book to its credit, which is classified as "spirit writings" [2]. Going by the extracts given, calling Coron's book a "scientific analysis" is staggeringly misleading. Neither are a suitable source of independent analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My web search came up with this [3] that looks like a legit publisher. I think the book on Ryden's writings may just have used an unconventional abbreviation? or is F.-X._de_Guilbert a knock off press attempting to pass by having a close name? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.fxdeguibert.com/ is the right publisher (tried to find it myself, you were more successful). Arkatakor (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont see it listed in their catalog though. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the fxdeguibert.com catalog is loaded with religious writings and accounts of religious miracles, so it's likely the same publisher as claimed for Coron. I don't know why it's not listed. Anyhow, the book in question, with a preface by ardent supporter Michael O'Carroll and on the "recommended reading" list at VassulaRyden.com [4] isn't likely an objective source, so presenting M. G. Lombal as a disinterested scientific expert won't fly and listing his job credentials at the CEA as if they mean something is silly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually they do because if you read the book, on top of being a certified graphologist and disinterested scientist, M. G. Lombal was an atheist (I don't know if he still is). It turns out that Parvis has also published the book which mentions M. G. Lombal's graphological analysis. Arkatakor (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have done some research on both books. The Vassula Enigma book was originally published in French by Editions Favre at ISBN 9782828905460, which is not a TLIG affiliated publisher. Trinitas then translated and published the English version of the book which I then referenced here. The full information of the original French version is below:

L'énigme Vassula: Jacques Neirynck Publisher: Editions Favre ISBN 9782828905460

Available from: http://www.parvis.ch/fr/livres-et-brochures/lenigme-vassula

As for J'ai vu écrire Vassula the publisher is as follows.

J'ai vu écrire Vassula: Dr Philippe Loron Publisher: Editions de Guibert ISBN 9782868393470

Available from: http://www.parvis.ch/fr/livres-et-brochures/jai-vu-ecrire-vassula

I think at this point it should not be an issue to re-insert the edits I performed yesterday using the aforementioned publishers as a reference (which are after all the originals) as opposed to TLIG affiliated Trinitas. Arkatakor (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No we are not going to go back to your original version. You havent addressed the overall WP:UNDUE weight of the section nor why even without the publisher conflict of interest why we would consider as a reliable source one that promotes "This handwriting appears to be forced therefore she must be possessed" rather than the entirely more reasonable, "This handwriting appears to be forced. She is struggling to make it look unlike her normal handwriting". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the elephant in the room here is that graphology is considered pseudoscience. We cannot seriously consider Ryden's handwriting analysis by Lobel to be scientific. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Doom, while I do agree that perhaps the overall length of the original graphological summary could be reduced somewhat, as per WP:UNDUE weight, the current graphological text in the article is missing the most notable findings now supported by no less than 3 certified graphologists. It is not up to us to judge what is "reasonable" or not. Thats the job of the graphologists. As for the publisher conflict, it was simply that the original publisher was a French publishing house which makes sense as Jacques Neirynck is Swiss. This should have been used from the beginning, not Trinitas. Personally I was unaware that Trinitas was a TLIG only publisher and am glad you pointed that out.

Binksternet, the real elephant in the room is the Joe Nickell's false experiment. Nickel starts with assumption that what he is analyzing is false therefore is not neutral in his approach. Here are a few observations I made on the latter investigator:

• Nickels' findings were published in The Skeptical Inquirer, which is not a formal scientific journal.
• Nickel is not a graphologist.
• As a non graphologist, he conducted a false experiment as he never met the subject (Vassula Ryden).
• His analysis is littered use of conjecture words: “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion”. In other words his analysis is inconclusive in comparison to that of the certified graphologists who reviewed her.

Take note that despite the above, no WP:UNDUE weight is being applied to the text attributed to Nickels findings. Graphology as you mention is not a hard science, but its the best discipline available to analyze the handwriting, and certainly the most relevant. We now have 3 certified graphologists that came up with similar findings, much to the surprise of the authors who mentioned them in their books. I do hope that the issue of publishing houses has been clarified, and that a more comprehensive analysis of the certified graphologists can be inserted after the WP:UNDUE weight issues have been resolved. Arkatakor (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

someone who looks at handwriting and comes back with an analysis that says “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion” is by FAR a more reliable source than one that comes back asserting "is being possessed by spirits" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

reception section needs work

i ham-fistedly just lumped all the various "reception" content together without any cohesive editing.

it seems to me that the contents within the section should be something like:

• she has cultivated a sizable fan base of believers around the world
  • including the support of a few "renegade" priests
• the official reaction from both the Catholic and Orthodox church hierarchies has been a formal "DONT YOU BELIEVE IT"
• the mainstream / skeptics find no evidence to assuage their logical view that her claims are pure woo.

is that a framework that seems accurate?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, better than what's there now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the priests who have positively reviewed Ryden are anything but "renegade priests". If you review the edit history of this article, particularly since the beginning May 2012, you will take note published works / articles of well-known and respected theologians / scientists / clergy (including cardinals) are systematically treated with disdain and prejudice and not allowed in the article (particularly by LuckyLouie). These authors include Niels Hvidt with his Oxford University Press publication, but also other authors such as graphologist and exorcist priest Fr. C. Curty, scientist and neurologist Dr. P. Loron (Paris), theologian and consultant on supernatural phenomena Fr. Rene Laurentin (France), scientist, politician and author Jacques Neirynck (Switzerland), author and theologian Fr. Edward O’Connor (Notre Dame University, USA), author and theologian Fr. F. Umaña Moñtoya (Colombia), Fr. Michael O’Carroll, member of the Marian Academy. Arkatakor (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

if you can name dozens of people willing to give these claims the time of day, compared as a percentage of the Orthodox hierarchy, they are a minuscule percent. When you add to the denominator the Catholic hierarchy and all serious religious scholars those dozens are less than any rounding error. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

See my commented dated 09:36, 15 April 2014 in this discussion. Arkatakor (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you've mistaken an absence of reverence for the subject as "disdain", and a consistent questioning of supernatural claims as "prejudice". The irony is that you could help make this a pretty good article if you took Wikipedia editorial policies to heart. For example, it sorely needs a section cited to secondary independent sources and written from an objective point of view describing what Ryden supporters believe and why they believe it, what they think her messages mean about Christian unity, etc. But instead, your efforts have been narrowly concentrated on inserting strategic sentences about a Vatican "dialogue". I think many editors here would be willing to step up and help if you wanted to genuinely pursue improving the article, me included. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have believed in your honest intentions for this article had your consistent questioning of authors / sources and particulary WP:WEIGHT concerns been equally applied to the critical material. Take note for example, that text attributed to Dermine, whose reputation and publication record does not come close to the theologians I mentioned above, is completely unchallenged. No WP:WEIGHT / WP:POV / WP:RS issues are ever brought up to challenge insertion of such critical content. As for your mention of secondary reliable sources, they have been presented to you and rejected outright. As an example, your treatment of Hvidt's work, an Oxford University Press publication, displayed a complete lack of neutrality on your part on this topic (see Fifelfoo's reaction to your comments in the RSN with comment dated 00:07, 4 June 2012). Arkatakor (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources you submitted didn't meet requirements for being independent which is why they were rejected, not because of any bias. As for the rest, it's just reiterating the same themes as anti-Wikipedia statement Ryden read on YouTube. By the way, my offer still stands. If you want to abandon the advocacy mission and take a crack at encyclopedic writing, I'll pitch in and help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: The sources you submitted didn't meet requirements for being independent which is why they were rejected If you still believe this I invite you to take this view of yours on Hvidt's publication back to the RSN, open up a new topic and see their reaction to your comments. I for one will not continue to argue with you regarding the validity of that source. The purpose of my pervious post was to highlight to non involved editors reading this conversation the prejudice that supportive / neutral authors have (and continue) to be subjected to. Arkatakor (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@TRPod aka the Red Pen of Doom – re: [if you can name dozens of people willing to give these claims the time of day, compared as a percentage of the Orthodox hierarchy, they are a minuscule percent. When you add to the denominator the Catholic hierarchy and all serious religious scholars those dozens are less than any rounding error.] Anyone claiming that God communicates with them inevitably excites controversy along with ridicule or belief in mainstream/religious/skeptic circles – there’s not going to be a lot of middle ground between those who reject or believe such a claim. In light of this & with ref to [WP:BAL]: Regardless of numbers supporting or rejecting Ryden’s claims, while the article states that there are supporters of Ryden it doesn’t set out why they support her claims – what they believe and why they believe it - eg Frs. O’Carroll/Laurentin (internationally known theologians, journalists & respected prolific authors, experienced & sought after for their expertise in the area of religious mystical phenomena/ apparitions - serious religious scholars). By contrast, there is a relatively large amount of information in the article (Reception/ Handwriting sections) stating why some people/groups reject Ryden’s claims (what they reject and why they reject it). In encyclopedic writing ought not both sides of any controversial issue be set out? (Siamsiocht (talk)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsiocht (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I advise a thorough reading of WP:UNDUE (particularly WP:BALANCE and WP:VALID subsections) and WP:FRINGE. We are not here to validate anyone's claims of talking to angels or even present them as remote possibilities until their is actually a significant mainstream academic view that takes such a position. Until there is an equally significant amount of mainstream support for her claims, the mainstream claims against her position will of necessity make up the better represented portion of the content of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

While I understand Arkatakor's reluctance to take up LuckyLouie's offer of help above, I would prefer to try to take up the offer if it's still being made. I think "A section cited to secondary independent sources and written from an objective point of view describing what Ryden supporters believe and why they believe it, what they think her messages mean about Christian unity" would certainly be a very desirable addition to the current page. On past experience I see almost no way of inserting anything on the page that isn't negative so if LuckyLouie could offer some guidance, I, for one, would like to give this a try.Sasanack (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Go here, follow instructions to create a userspace draft of a proposed section of the article. Save it. Post a link to it here on this Talk page. We'll discuss. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since showing an interest in trying this path, I have paid more attention to LuckyLoui's precise suggestion. And the phrase "cited to secondary independent sources" has registered home! This is the whole problem. The media out there has no interest in a topic like this so the only citable source for information is from those who have studied Vassula's experiences and her messages. But WP doesn't accept such sources because they are automatically classified as supporters of Vassula and thus not independent! Maybe someone else could try to follow up LuckLouie's offer.Sasanack (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on your point with regard to "the need to have secondary sources" being a problem. This is because there are reliable sources pertaining to a lot of the issues that have been disputed. The real problem is that when they are presented they are rejected on the grounds that they are not "independent". In this mindset it seems that sources can only be independent if they write negatively about Ryden - if reliable sources write positively about her then they are branded as "supporters" and thus "cannot possibly" be independent. This is logic failure. Arkatakor (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you've got it wrong. My objection was to using someone who arranged an interview for her with a cardinal, drove her around, did errands for her, and appeared on stage at fan events to introduce her, etc. as an "independent" and "authoritative" view of her status with the RC Church. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

See Despayre's comment in this RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_124#Commentary_and_discussion_by_uninvolved_editors. I will quote it here: "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." If despite this you have ongoing concerns about the validity of Hvidt's publication as a source, my invitation for you to take this concern back to the RSN by opening a new topic still stands. Arkatakor (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@TRPod aka the Red Pen of Doom – re: if you can name dozens of people willing to give these claims the time of day, compared as a percentage of the Orthodox hierarchy, they are a minuscule percent. When you add to the denominator the Catholic hierarchy and all serious religious scholars those dozens are less than any rounding error.

Ok, let's not get off on the wrong foot here. I for one am glad that you have taken an interest in editing this article. Your approach to editing has sofar displayed a neutral approach, something that I have not observed in most other editors involved in this article. Now as for your opening statement I find that it illustrates a view that is too simplistic of what has actually gone down between Ryden and the church, those who has reviewed her and whatnot. The dispute history revolving around this article (in RSN's, DRN's and RFC's) was mainly focused on Rydens dialogue with the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), a dialogue (now entirely absent from the article) that occurred between Ryden and the CDF between 2000-2004.

When mediating this DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_35#Vassula_Ryden, non-involved user and mediator TransporterMan, who was a newcomer to Rydens background did some serious reading on Ryden's background, including the dialogue with the CDF. In his comment dated 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC) TransporterMan stated that he found the following non wiki usable link informative: http://www.cdf-tlig.org/ The aforementioned link contains a report which was written by Dr. Niels Hvidt, who was directly involved in Ryden's dialogue with the CDF. Hvidt also wrote an RSN approved doctoral dissertation titled Christian Prophecy, The Post-Biblical Tradition published in 2007 by Oxford University Press (OUP) (which I mentioned earlier). This book contains a paragraph on the case of Rydén with the CDF, titled “Dialogue between Vassula Rydén and the CDF”. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the Foreword to the book, which is a big deal considering he was prefect of the CDF at the time the 1995 notification was issued. My first recommendation is to go through that website to get a more comprehensive understanding of what has gone down between Ryden and the CDF, paying particular attention to the four documents the Vatican has issued regarding Ryden. These are the 1995 notification, its reconfirmation in 1996, the 2004 document that stated that Ryden offered useful clarifications with regard to issues raised in the 1995 notification, and finally, the 2007 re-iteration of the 1995 notification.

My second recommendation is that you read TransporterMans's comment dated 17:07, 26 June 2012 in its entirety (also in the aforementioned DRN). To summarize, he stated that the four documents that the Vatican has issued regarding Ryden and her works were very ambiguous and could be interpreted in many different ways. As such, he highlighted that self-interpretation of the Vatican documents for purposes of inserting associated material into the article was in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. He concluded to say that for this reason and the fact that there was a lack of secondary reliable sources to interpret all four documents in unison, the section in question (everything related the Vatican's views on Ryden) should be removed until there is a reliable secondary source that makes a synthesis of all four relevant vatican documents. This suggestion was disregarded. Instead the 1995 / 1996 notification and its 2007 reconfirmation has been kept in the article and duplicated to appear in the lead. None of the sources currently used in the article that discuss the Vatican's view on Ryden perform a synthesis of all four Vatican documents. Any mention of the 2004 document and the Ryden-CDF dialogue that preceeded it, was (and continues to be) kept out despite the fact that there two reliable sources that confirm it took place (Hvidt's RSN approved book which I mentioned and an article written by a Cardinal from insidethevatican.com.

The repeated accusation against myself and other editors who are in favor of including the CDF dialogue is that we are trying to add a spin to the article to make it out that the Vatican has a different view other than the official line. This is not the case. We are simply trying to insert it as part of the chronology of events between Ryden and the CDF. See this discussion as an example. Arkatakor (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The 2004 'dialogue' was conducted by email, not in person. This so-called dialogue has resulted in no change at the Holy See, no relaxing of the Notification, no easing of the instruction to Catholic leaders to refuse to host Ryden-related events. Said 'dialogue' is being used by Ryden as a wedge to try and force a questioning of the implacable Roman Catholic official stance. No such questioning is called for—there is simply no change to the Notification. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, a few clarifications on the dialogue with the CDF:

1. From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF in which the CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors and submitted five questions in a letter dated April 4, 2002.
2. At the request of Joseph Ratzinger (head of the CDF at the time), Rydens answers to the aforementioned five questions were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.
3. The result of the 2000 to 2004 dialogue was concluded in a private audience with Ratzinger

In the light of the above, stating that this dialogue was conducted only by email seems to be yet another attempt to mislead people on your part. Both Hvidt's RSN approved book which I mentioned and an article written by a Cardinal from insidethevatican.com confirm the 3 points illustrated above. The latter source by Cardinal Prosper Grech states that:

Her response was precise and sincere, so it was thought that the CDF was satisfied. The then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, gave her an audience, and the correspondence was interpreted as permission to leave it to the bishops to decide. In 2007, however, Ratzinger’s successor Cardinal Levada reiterated that the Notification was still in force.

Again I re-iterate - no one is trying to make it out as if the official stance has changed. We are simply discussing about inserting it as part of the chronology of events between Ryden and the CDF. Arkatakor (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

any third party sources that have indicated the "dialog" was worthy of mentioning? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And your continued instance that the one editor who has agreed with you about the source is the only one whose opinion matters is a little disrespectful to everyone else who has voiced other opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I held transporterman's opinion in high regard because he was very neutral in his approach to this article and most importantly, because he did some serious background reading on the topic. Regarding certain other editors who have voiced their opinion, they have taken a very one sided approach to editing the article and have consistently disregarded facts, tried to manipulate them or posted misleading statements in the discussion boards. How am I then to hold their views in high regard? RE: any third party sources that have indicated the "dialog" was worthy of mentioning? Yes, as mentioned, Cardinal Prosper Grech in this article. Arkatakor (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Re ’Until there is an equally significant amount of mainstream support for her claims, the mainstream claims against her position will of necessity make up the better represented portion of the content of the article.’

Have read links you suggested, thanks. I’m wondering exactly how the academic credentials, renown, publication record of a source is relevant in Wikipedia as per: (ref WP:SOURCE Type/Creator/Publisher of the work) The credentials of some supporters of Ryden appear to surpass a number of sources whose mainstream claims against her position are included in the article. Does being outside of the mainstream automatically silence all sources regardless of calibre of academic credentials etc? Is it not of interest to know why, despite a Notification from Vatican & Orthodox Church (detailed in the article), some high ranking clergy & world renowned theologians continue to support the claims of a Greek Orthodox whom they are told to disregard? Can not the rationale for their support of Ryden’s claims be set out to some degree in the article even if mainstream claims against her position as you say: ‘will of necessity make up the better represented portion of the content of the article.’? Siamsiocht (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

see the post that opened this section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)