Talk:Gemma Galgani/Archive 1

Stigmata

The "Stigmata" section never mentions the stigmata. It might better be renamed "Public Reception". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.229 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done – Good point. The "Stigmata" section can be developed later. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Assignment to category "People in the Province of Caserta"

What is the relation of Gemma Galgani with the province of Caserta? All the references to places are within the province of Lucca.

Recent edits

Bodding, I think you should use the talk page first to discuss your edits as they could be seen as POV; the reference you removed seemed valid. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Britishfinance, thank you for your message. It seems WP:UNDUE. The comment is coming from a psychologist who had no direct knowledge of anything Galgani may or may not have been suffering, so I removed it. Bodding (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bodding He seems like a notable person in this area (he has a WP article on his books); I don't know if he examined her but the article doesn't say he did, just that he believed that her wounds were self-inflicted. Seems a notable fact that should be recorded. thanks. Britishfinance [User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 19:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Britishfinance I disagree. The foster mother and the doctor have already weighed in. There is nothing from the Church, which obviously had a very different opinion and canonized her. The psychologist is entirely undue and needs to be removed. We can do a request for comment if you like. It's a ridiculous argument as it doesn't harm the article by removing it in any way and in fact removes something that is an entirely unnecessary point. It's beating a dead horse to keep it in. Bodding (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bodding But isn't D. H. Rawcliffe a noted author in this area? His book The Psychology of the Occult, has a WP article (I find that older books - therefore no PROMO - that have WP articles are almost always of note)? If Galgani's stigmata was the subject of a paper in a major medical journal, would you also make the same argument?

What I am trying to understand is whether your objection is the notability/credibility of Rawcliffe (or, maybe that this is not his area of expertise), OR, whether you object to any further comment by other notable people beyond the Galgani's foster mother and doctor? If it is the latter, then I would oppose your removal of Rawcliffe's reference – quoting quality independent sources on subjects are what WP is all about; we have thousands of high-quality sources quoted on Jesus Christ in WP, but I can assure you, that none of them ever met Jesus. It would be reasonable to see if noted independent figures in the field agreed with the evidence of the foster mother and doctor.

I think the sentence on Rawcliffe could be improved so as not to imply he examined her, but just that on reading the evidence, he also agreed that it was self-harm; this is what I propose:

In his 1952 book The Psychology of the Occult, psychologist D. H. Rawcliffe also believed the evidence that her stigmata was caused by "self-inflicted wounds of a major hysteric."

References

thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You've precisely outlined why it doesn't belong. It's the same as original research. It's supposition. He's plastering his opinion, which is in no way a proper medical diagnosis, onto another person's medical diagnosis. Of course doctors believe these people are nuts. The very same was said of all of them including Padre Pio. The fact the doctor and the foster mother were actually there is relevant. But it's a bridge too far to add in this psychologist. He's selling books. The doctor who actually examined her was not. Bodding (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)