Talk:Padre Pio/Archive 1

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

Story of Padre Pio protecting San Giovanni Rotondo from Allied bombers

link: http://www.forwellness.ca/sites/forwellness.ca/cms.aspx?pageid=NewsletterAugust2008 More information needs to be presented about Padre Pio's spiritual influence on protecting San Giovanni Rotondo from an allied bomber attack in 1943. Forrman67 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Randi Article

link: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/172/27/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.240.241 (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution

It never ceases to amaze me how skeptics and anti-Catholics never produce evidence that can stand the same level of critical scrutiny that they apply to trying to disproved the claims others made of Padre Pio. These people claim to be intelligent but when the light of truth is shone upon their "science" and logic, it fails miserably. --Hcsknight (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people believe in this rubbish. Stigmata? Papal infallibility? Please .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.40.212 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


There a million stories of reported miracles attributed to to Padre Pio can anyone who knows any referenced material add them?

- There were 'a million stories' of miracles, but not one reliable piece of evidence. Nor will there be of course. --kscally 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Pater Pio had stigmata (bleeding of hands and feet as Christ) , but I don't know if that's a proven fact. 212.35.106.250

  • HOW can you say it was not a proven fact? you havent even researched this Saint yet are writing about him? He had to undergo numerous psychiatric and Medical exams and they all came back that Medical the wounds weren't mad made and his mental health was fine.

- Despite 'numerous psychiatric and Medical exams' there is not a single name of one of the medical professionals involved, no copy of one of their reports, and not one verifiable piece of supporting evidence to cite.--kscally 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it will be argued over and over again. There is a famous photograph of the priest showing his stigmatized hands. A seemingly identical photo shows him without scars. It has been said by some that this shows the wounds to be concocted, while others have said the photo without the scars was doctored. The photos, I believe were well-known at the time, and so I don't think there was too much controversy around them.

You are right, Pater Pio was a stigmatic during 40 years (I dont know exactly), but what I know exactly is, he was an Italian, not a Czech one. User:JanJosef

Move to Padre Pio ? --Jiang

Am I blind, or is his real name entirely missing from the article? Kickstart70 22:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why we don't have here any of his prophecies related to John Paul II?

First line

I propose changing the first lines to:

Francesco Forgione (May 25, 1887 - September 23, 1968), canonized Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, was an Italian priest. He took the name Pio when he joined the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. After his ordination to the priesthood he was popularly know as Padre Pio.
He had the stigmata for many years, and what was so unusual about Pio's stigmata was that when it bled, the blood smelled of perfume or flowers. . . .

Any concerns about this?

Question: Is "Pater Pio" really common among English speakers? I have only ever heard of "Padre Pio," among English and Italians. I propose moving this page to either Pio of Pietrelcina or Padre Pio. Any thoughts?

--Eoghanacht 20:45, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Article currently begins: "Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, was an Italian serial killer, convicted of murdering 117 young men and woman in the late 1950s. After a mix-up he was canonized by the pope, who had actually meant to begin the process of ex-communication."

I don't know how to report vandalism, but I know it when I see it.


The first parish to use his name (my parish) is Saint Padre Pio Parish of Vineland, NJ so I would say this is maybe more appropriate "Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, also known as Saint Padre Pio..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.147.42 (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Article name change

I went ahead and changed the article from "Pater Pio" to "Pio of Pietrelcina." As best I could determine, the title was chosen by a Czech user, where he was known as "Pater Pio." I decided against moving to "Padre Pio" somewhat because 'Padre' was not really part of his name, but mostly because "Pio of Pietrelcina" is how the saint is mostly likely to be referred to in future Church literature, and in terms of naming things (schools, churches, etc.) after him. --Eoghanacht 18:38, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Padre Pio is the only way I have ever heard anyone refer to him within the church. My cousin, a Franciscan monk, has met him, and has shown me literature (all in english) and everything refers to him as Padre Pio. I think you should reconsider removing Padre. Even John Paul II referred to him as Padre Pio.

Request for Expansion

This article isn't very detailed when compared to the articles of other saints. See my talk page for more details and possible topics.Trevor 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would use alot of his writings but they would get edited out..-Gio

Cadaver photos

During his funeral preparation, someone took photos of Padre Pio's bare feet and hands and no wounds were visible on the corpse, which created some scandal with allegations of stigmata fraud. Others said it must be another miracle, since the limbs were too good for such an old person, looked almost like a baby's skin. 213.178.109.36 20:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

On this subject, the line "Photos taken of his bare feet and hands during his funeral procession created some scandal with allegations of stigmata fraud, although deluded believers cited it as yet another miracle." seems inappropriate for two reasons: (1) it makes no mention of why these photos "created some scandal with allegations of stigmata fraud", and (2) the gratuitous insertion of the word "deluded" to describe believers.65.16.78.62 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Jerry Beckett, Dallas, TX
ahh another critic. where are these pictures? I researched this also. His spiritual directors were skeptics and he was made to under go numerous Doctor tests. I think 38 by agnostics, atheists and religious. They all said that the wounds were unexplainable and The Blood was real. plus the wounds didn't build scabs over them. - Gio
Even devotees of Padre Pio say that the stigmata was not visible on his corpse. The stigmata healed a few days before he died. He lost a cup of blood per day from his side alone, and this was confirmed by many doctors. But when he was buried, all the wounds had healed. For more information on this, Br. Michael Dimond, a sedevacantist monk, has compiled a small pamphlet about him. I will try to get the sources from his work.

Pietrelcina or Pietralcina?

Two recent edits changed "Pietrelcina" to "Pietralcina" in the text (though without moving the article). Both names seem to be attested (a Google search turns up 457,000 for "-e-" and 80,200 for "-a-", with Pio mentioned in many results under both spellings). But the town's own official website uses the "-e-" spelling, so I am reverting the changes. Vilĉjo 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Title

I have added the infobox, but was not sure whether to state his Title as Confessor or Capuchin Monk ie. Professed priest of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. Someone who is clear about this please edit the Infobox and put in the appropriate one. Thank you. I remain, Yours Faithfully, Savio mit electronics 11:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Images or Photographs

I feel it would enliven the article if more photographs or images are added to it. I was not able to find any non-copyright protected images that have direct relevance to Padre Pio to include in this article. Before I started contributing to this article, the article contained two images with direct relavance to Padre Pio, a photograph of Padre Pio and a photograph of the Pilgrimage Church. All the other images I added have only an indirect relationship to Padre Pio and I only added them since, as the article became a bit long after my edits, it appeared dry with only two images. If any of you have any images that could be included in this article, please do so. Thanking you, I remain, Yours faithfully, Savio mit electronics 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Critics of Padre Pio

I have provided more details referencing negative criticism of Padre Pio originating from Catholic sources. I have heard that that the founder of Romes University Hospital retracted his criticism of Padre Pio on his death bed but can find no hard evidence to support this. Any information on this subject would be appreciated. 23 September 2006 3:33pm --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.129.80 (talk • contribs)

Greetings, friend!
I take it you mean Fr. Agostino Gemelli. One of the sources I cited says that Monsignore Carlo Maccari retracted his criticism and prayed for St. Pio's intercession on his deathbed, but says nothing about Fr.Gemelli. Also, it in turn quotes another source, but it is not specific, (It merely says "according to Official Capuchin Literature") so I don't know how far it qualifies as hard evidence. I wonder if this should be added to the Biography section.
I offer prayers for all Wikipedians on the Feast Day of St. Padre Pio (today, September 23).
Peace!
Yours,
Savio mit electronics 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Stigmata

Is it just me, or does this article have the same date for both his invisible and visible stigmata? Both have as the date September 20th, 1918. It seems to me that the date for the invisible stigmata is incorrect, based solely on the context of the article, as the next paragrahs have him writing a letter concerning the event in 1911, a letter which would have been written at a later dater. Furthermore, this section also states that the visible wounds 'only reappeared in September 1918". i suggest this sate be double-checked and corrected. I have viewed the sourse cited for the writing in 1911, and from that site have determined that the proposed date would be sometime in 1910. Honeslty, IMHO, it is unecessary to even have a date for this event, because such an event may have occured on many dates in his life, and it was the visible Stigmata in 1918 which truly brought about his fame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.191.9.180 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Jessie Grimond in Rome

Two statements from an newspaper article appear in this article.

  • Although Padre Pio was personally exonerated, there were claims that his fame was used to raise funds for right-wing religious groups.
  • Benito Mussolini was supposed to have written to him, expressing hope that one day the friar would be made a saint.

Grimond, Jessie (2002-06-16). "Million to see canonisation of Padre Pio, the miracle monk who makes". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

No specific information is given about who is making the claims and what right-wing religious groups were the beneficiary of his fame.

Was supposed are weasel-words for maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. If it were written as text in the article it would be deleted.

I could not find any online corroboration for either claim. I have several reasons for removing them: they are rather vaguely and tentatively stated in the first place, they are comments about unnamed groups and Mussolini with no participation from Padre Pio. They are relevant to the religiosity of Italy in the 20th century but not directly to the life of the saint. Their appearance gives undue weight to a minority critical of the decision to canonize Padre Pio who found in Jessie Grimond a communication channel. patsw 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Removed. If you want to revert it, please discuss how the reference to "right-wing religious groups" can be made specific, or how a source can be identified for the Mussolini comment. patsw 23:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-flagellation

Where does this come from? patsw 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Removed. If you want to revert this, please identify a verifiable, reliable source. patsw 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should pick up a book and read something about a subject whose article you want to edit. Check your facts before removing correct information. Dwain 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide proper citations for information you believe to be correct, Dwain, or expect it to be removed. Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious amounts of citations needed

I can't begin to list the number of times this article makes statements without providing proper citations. Almost every paragraph contains a sentence that begins with 'It is believed that...' or 'It is said that...' or 'Padre Pio was afraid that...' or 'He thought that...', and no sources are given for any of these assertions. This is the kind of thing that makes me think that bona fide hagiography (which this is, both in the strict and in the looser sense) has no place in an encylopedia. Until someone can provide sources for any of these assertions, I have a strong mind to cut this article drastically until it consists of nothing but statements for which sources are given. I realise that this is a drastic measure, but I wouldn't tolerate this kind of sloppiness in an article about a scientific or artistic topic and I see no reason why an article on a religious subject should have it any easier. Lexo 21:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 92 footnotes in this article. This number compares quite favorably with other Wikipedia biographical entries. I am not sure how this qualifies as "sloppiness." To my knowledge, no article, biographical, scientific or otherwise, requires a footnote for every sentence. The article is about a canonized saint, so of course it is going to contain overwhelmingly positive information about his life. LotR 13:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Here here! Dwain 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it is necessary to be specific. The phenomenon of constant daily exsanguination is disturbing and remarkable; but could be explained by a variety of non-miraculous causes. At least one of the 92 or more footnotes is therefore required to support the following statement: "His stigmata, regarded as evidence of holiness, was studied by numerous physicians. The observations reportedly were unexplainable and the wounds never infected." First, it would be good to know if there is evidence that 'numerous' independent, qualified and objective medical people did carry out an examination. If there is no evidence then this sentence should be removed. Next, It is not true to say that the observations reportedly were unexplainable, since the article itself offers one explanation in the charge of the use of acid. If the aforementioned physicians report could be obtained, and they have utterly discounted the use of acid, then that may be one explanation less. If they authoritatively ruled out self-inflicted injury of any kind, that would remove others. If they rule out any form of virus, known or unique, we are certainly narrowing the field. But given the supernatural nature of the claim being made, we are entitled to expect a better standard of proof than hearsay. Kscally 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lexo above. This article is full of passive voice statements that are problematic (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Other problems). Some examples:

  • It is believed that he was able to see and speak with Jesus, the Virgin Mary and his Guardian Angel
  • it is believed he was subjected to attacks by the Devil.
  • It is believed that the visible wounds disappeared from that point

This fails to say who believes. Take this example from the article that is much better: Based on Padre Pio's correspondence, even early in his priesthood he experienced less obvious indications of the visible stigmata for which he would later become famous. This is clear, NPOV and attributed. --Xeeron 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kscally and disagree with LotR. Avoiding criticizing these miracle-statements from a purely scientific point of view just because he has been recognized as a saint by the holy sea is clearly not NPOV! There are POVs all over this article. I do not know much about what further studies have been made but I'm very very sure that there are studies and other material that try to disapprove these statements of miracles. Both POVs should be presented from my POV :-) 213.113.64.67 (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

One can't help but notice the lack references to any sources skeptical of Padre Pio's miracles. Certainly, there are more pious works written on the man than skeptical ones. This is to be expected: authors generally skeptical of the supernatural are less likely to delve into every detail of Pio's alleged stigmata. Nonetheless, this article's near-exclusive use of sources that affirm the "offical" (Vatican) version of the supposed miracles surrounding Pio is problematic. We're clearly runing into undue weight issues here. Comments? I'm thinking we need an NPOV tag until some more critical sources are worked into the article. The fact that the article is heavily-footnoted isn't enough. Those notes have to point to something other than a never-ending list of hagiographies and pious articles. Surely some skeptics have written a few articles on Pio. --Zantastik talk 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Zantastik. The article adopts a factual tone to describe phenomena that are, to say the least, contestable. Some discussion of contrary views would balance this somewhat. Also, the article opens with detailed trivial facts about his childhood and early adult life: then, out of the blue, casually states "Later, in response to his growing reputation as a worker of miracles..." No account of these alleged miracles is made - let alone of any inquiry into their veracity - despite them being the foundation of his reputation. They are surely more significant in his 1918 life than pretty much any other fact! Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish?

Herotec! It is true no tricks no acid nothing he is a true man of god! are non-religous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.247.30 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your many, many valuable contributions.
Mdbrownmsw 18:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vatican spectacle: 800,000 reservations, extended to September 2009

Cardinal Jaime Saraiva Martins, prefect for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, will celebrate a Mass on April 24, 11a.m. at the Shrine of Holy Mary of Grace, San Giovanni Rotondo, after which the public can view the exhumed remains (from the crypt).[1] Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana 2006 poll stated that "more Italian Catholics prayed to Padre Pio than to any other icon, including the Virgin Mary or Jesus". There are 3,000 "Padre Pio Prayer Groups" worldwide, with 3 million members. 750,000 pilgrims worldwide, mostly from Italy, made reservations to view the body up to December, but only 7,200 people a day will file past the crystal coffin.[2] --Florentino floro (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There were accusations that the Vatican was cashing on the tourism aspect of this holy event. So, I researched 4 links and added this, by major revision to include: formalin injection, Gem's London mask, and specifics of display since we have no images here; can anyone UPLOAD image please? May I reproduce the entire 2 sub-sections since, future edits and deletions may not revert these. I found these events and links so important for future researches: On March 3, 2008 the body of Saint Pio was exhumed from his crypt, 40 years after his death, so that his remains could be prepared for display. A church statement described the body as being in "fair condition." Archbishop Domenico D'Ambrosio, papal legate to the shrine in San Giovanni Rotondo, stated "the top part of the skull is partly skeletal but the chin is perfect and the rest of the body is well preserved".[3] He further confirmed that formalin was injected into his body prior to burial to preserve it and his corpse was restored by medical examiners and biochemists. He went on to say that St. Pio's hands "looked like they had just undergone a manicure". It was hoped that morticians would be able to restore the face so that it will be recognizable. However, due to its deterioration, his face was reconstructed (by Gems, a London studio that once supplied Madame Tussauds) with a lifelike silicone (wax) mask to represent his face, complete with beard and bushy eyebrows, because it was too decomposed.[4] Current plans call for Pio's body to be placed in a glass coffin and displayed after April 24th.[5] Archbishop D’Ambrosio confirmed in a communiqué that “the stigmata are not visible.” [6] Cardinal Jaime Saraiva Martins, prefect for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, celebrated Mass for 15,000 devotees on April 24, 11 a.m., at the Shrine of Holy Mary of Grace, San Giovanni Rotondo, before the body went on display in a regal crystal, marble and silver sepulcher in the crypt of the monastery.[7] Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana 2006 poll stated that "more Italian Catholics prayed to Padre Pio than to any other icon, including the Virgin Mary or Jesus". There are 3,000 "Padre Pio Prayer Groups" worldwide, with 3 million members. 800,000 pilgrims worldwide, mostly from Italy, made reservations to view the body up to December, but only 7,200 people a day will file past the crystal coffin.[8] In his brown monk’s robe and black slippers, Padre Pio is wearing his Capuchin order's brown hood with a crystals and gold embroidered white silk stole on his shoulders, while his hands have a large wooden cross. Officials extended the display through September, 2009.[9][10][11][12] --Florentino floro (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin Mass Permission

The article asserts that Padre Pio was "given permission" to celebrate the "traditional Latin Mass" but that can not possible be true and what is more, the source listed to back it up makes ZERO menion of such a fact. It is in fact an article in a Boston local newpaper that does nothing but attack the Catholic Church as being too conservative.

The question needs to be asked, what does "traditional Latin Mass" mean? What "permission" could Padre Pio possibly have been given?

Most people coming to this site will assume that permission was given to Padre Pio to continue to celebrate Mass according to the liturgical books of 1962 and not have to change to the liturgical books of 1970, but that is IMPOSSIBLE, since Padre Pio died in 1968, two years before. What is more, a "source" was listed for this lie that has nothing to do with it at all.

Now it is possible that Padre Pio might have been given permission to continue to celebrate Mass according to the 1955 liturgical books and not have to change to the 1962 books. This is possible but those two sets of books are almost exaclty identical except that the Good Friday prayer has one less word in it. The Confiteor just before communion was still optional and thus officially part of the ritual even if not explicitly printed and adding St. Joseph's name to the cannon would be easy enough as different saints are said for every different day that exist. It really would be no big change that anyone before 1970 would have even noticed.

What I suspect happened here is that some sedevacantist or SSPXer came to the sight and acted as a liar to make it seem as though Padre Pio rejected the Mass of Paul VI. This would not be possible as Padre Pio would never have had a chance to see those books to give an opinion one way or the other. It is true that he celebrated the Mass of St. Peter (Roman Canon) until he died, but that is because that was the only Mass he could have said. He was Latin Rite and did not have faculties to celebrate the Mozarabic or any other approved diviation from the standard Roman Canon (liturgy of St. Peter). Padre Pio even wrote a very harsh letter to his sister when she broke obediance and left her convent over VII issues. He repremanded her very harshly and insisted that she must remain faithful and obediant, even in suffering, to the Church. Padre Pio never rejected Vatican II and we don't know if he ever would have rejected the ordinary form of the Mass as he died before it was issued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. This quote is on page 2 of that article:"Not surprisingly, Pio was dismayed by many of the changes introduced by Vatican II and was even granted special permission to continue to say Mass in Latin."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
He could have been permission to continue before the new missels because they gave several years notice before the change to the vernacular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.147.42 (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of "alleged"

It seems like every second sentence begins with "alleged". I think is definitely overdoing it. The paragraphs don't even flow correctly. It's like Padre Pio is alleged to have talked to a girl. According to some alleged sources, which have not been fully verified, he said, you can now see. Allegedly, the girl claimed to be able to see. C'mon, give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.11.88 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How should it be written?--218.223.197.215 (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As a grandfather?

"As a grandfather he claimed to have experienced heavenly visions and ecstasies." And, I thought that priests were celebate. I guess that this should be "To his grandfather"?--218.223.197.215 (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed that - perhaps a vandalism? - as it is not supported in any variation by the book cited. --CliffC (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The original line was,"As a youth he claimed to have experienced heavenly visions and ecstasies.[13]", looks like some vandal changed it along the way.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Aha. I scanned the book for 'grandfather' and so found no statement anywhere near that. Will you fix it, or shall I? Best, CliffC (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Recorded data

Padre Pio had stigmata real or not real HE HAD IT. I do belive it was a gift from God and not acid and that when he died he went to heven. I am NOT speaking alegidly when i say this, GET OVER IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.173.236 (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don Zauker series

I take that my edit was removed in less than 5 mins for no reasons; the section about his impact on popular culture is the right place to state he's become an iconic individual in a satyrical comics, this info having the same dignity as the controversies parts. I noticed it as I wanted to fix a thing, so I put it back, hoping it will remain, as it seems to me to be perfectly fit and congrous with this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.93.128.32 (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Edit: and now I sourced it too, let's see if the edit is rolled back again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.93.128.32 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Page move/article name

I moved the page from Pio of Pietrelcina to Padre Pio of Pietrelcina. I've never heard him called Pio of Pietrelcina. Everything I've ever read has always said either just "Padre Pio" or "Padre Pio of Pietrelcina." I saw the early thread about the article name and this seems the best way to go.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest moving the page from the current to St. Padre Pio of Pietralcina. He is a saint now and saints have St. before their name. It is the orthodox mannar of referring to canonized individuals all over literature so that they are distinguised from the rest. Sainthood involves a process within the Catholic Church which is well known and even documented within literature itself. I really suggest the move. Thankyou Alan347 (talk)

"Padre" is Italian for "Father", which is how priests are normally addressed. So "Saint Pio" would be the correct manner of referring to him after his canonization - NOT "Saint Padre Pio", which appears to be becoming common. We can probably also expect to hear of "Saint Mother Teresa" if this trend takes hold. Elio1 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Appearing to Maria Esperanza before he died

An editor recently added the claim of Maria Esperanza de Bianchini that Pio, who was her spiritual director, appeared to her before his death. The edit was removed by another editor on the basis that the source was not a reliable source. I restored the edit, indicating that althought the source at first glance might not appear reliable, the author has written more than a dozen books on related subject and would appear to be reliable. I also added another source. I have a third source, an encyclopedia on pilgrimages which concurs and which I will add. An recently editor put a "dubious" tag on the edit. While the question of whether Pio appeared to her is certainly a matter which is wide open (her husband being the only one present), I think it is now clear that Ms. Esperanza, who has now had a cause for her canonization opened, made this claim. I'm going to add the third source and remove the dubious tag. Mamalujo (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Was the husband the only person present during the transformation? They did not report that Elvis was there too? This lady's website says that she predicted technology (inconsistent to any scientist I tell you) and claims to have predicted the internet too, saying:
"nuclear electronic science, thermonuclear science, and transistonuclear science." The message, now 23 years old, also seems to have foreseen the internet. "Electronic computers will [cause] the utmost revolution people could imagine," she quotes a message from 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on March 18, 1981."
I am trying not to laugh. And she claims both levitation and bilocation! And The bridge to Heaven: interviews with Maria Esperanza of Betania by Michael H. Brown is not based on investigative reporting, it is based on interviews with her. And the article mentioned is again based on that book. So all roads here lead to interviews with her, and nothing else. The quotes you have are "nowhere near" WP:Reliable. And she can get submitted for beatification, but that does not a saint make. Many years of investigation will be needed. And please note that this person has an imprimatur and support from her Archbishop (no less) who still supports while and some of her books pages were found to be exact copies of training manuals for seminarians and books written by other authors. So bishop support does not always mean much. Now what does Pilgrimage encyclopedia say exactly? Please state what it says instead of just a blind reference. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Gilitz is Jewish and so has no dog in this fight. He has authored 9 books and over 40 scholarly articles. The encyclopedia is a reliable source. You seem to be missing the point. Whether or not what Esperanza claimed was true or not is mostly beside the point. The point is she was a notable (now that her cause has been opened) devotee of Pio, indeed he was her spiritual advisor. That she claimed his visitation is credible, notable and reliably sourced (whether or not the apparition/viistation is). As to your pious fraud, it is not surprising if she is copying from seminary texts that her books would get an imprimatur now is it? After all those texts ought to be orthodox. Of course, that is all a red herring. If you want to see what the source says, there's a page cite. It corroborates the matter in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You did not answer the Elvis part. As for "Pio, indeed he was her spiritual advisor", did she ever meet Pio, or was it by bi-location? Or was it when she invented the internet? The point is that she seems to run an "exaggeration factory", and that needs to be noted - for it is notable. As for the non-pious fraud, she did not say she copied it, but said it was private revelation. Maybe it was and God was just reading the previously published book to her. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
She would not be the first purported mystic to run an "exaggeration factory". I am not saying she speaks only the truth. It was not her but the apparitions at Betania which the Bishop in South America approved in 1987. The earlier apparitions, he noted, were seen by few and uneducated people, many of them children. The Bishop notes that the later apparitions witnessed included "many middle class professional people as: Doctors, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Engineers and Lawyers. There are also numerous college students from the different Universities in Caracas." Over 100 people saw at least 7 apparitions and signed statements to that effect. The Bishop's 1987 letter, although nearly 6,000 words, mentions Esperanza only once. So, I am not saying her claims in the article are credible, only that it is credible that she made them and that they are now notable because her cause has been opened. If indeed she is an apparent fraud, her cause will go nowhere. Mamalujo (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This claim about this woman is more appropriate to the article about her, not to Padre Pio. This article is already bloated with unnecessary items. If there's a consensus to delete this bit about this woman, I support it's deletion. As a side note, just because a cause for canonization has been opened has nothing to do with the merits. She has fans. Lots of people have fans. That doesn't mean the Vatican should/would declare them saints.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Parents names

The article reports his father's name as Grazio. Two works that I have access to[14][15] have his name as Orazio. Also one of his sisters is listed as Pellegrina. The two works have her name as Felicia. This needs to be clarified. --Auric (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Padre Pio: the true story Page 24 by Bernard Ruffin - 1991 [1]:
"Although he was baptized Grazio, Padre Pio's father was known most of his life as Orazio".
So there we go. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. What about the sister?--Auric (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not superman, I have no idea on that one, sorry. History2007 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I have confirmed the third sister in this link [2]--Auric (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ www.catholicnewsagency, Faithful to be able to venerate exhumed remains of Padre Pio
  2. ^ iht.com, Faithful await display of Catholic mystic's body
  3. ^ BBC News Retrieved 16 March 2008.
  4. ^ Moore, Malcolm. "Padre Pio pilgrims flock to see saint's body" Telegraph. 25 Apr 2008
  5. ^ Pullella, Phillip (2008-03-03). "Popular Italian Catholic saint exhumed 40 years on". Reuters Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
  6. ^ "St. Padre Pio's Body Exhumed". Zenit. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
  7. ^ www.catholicnewsagency, Faithful to be able to venerate exhumed remains of Padre Pio
  8. ^ iht.com, Faithful await display of Catholic mystic's body
  9. ^ www.theaustralian.news.com.au, Corpse of mystic monk moves the crowd
  10. ^ .findingdulcinea.com, Italian Saint Padre Pio’s Body Put on Display
  11. ^ www.stripes.com, Thousands in Italy flock to see exhumed saint Padre Pio
  12. ^ heraldextra.com, Mystic monk is exhumed second time
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ruffin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Carty, Rev. Charles Mortimer (1951). "Biography of Padre Pio". Padre Pio: The Stigmatist. Saint Paul 1, Minn.: Radio Replies Press. p. 1. LCC GN 111.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  15. ^ De Liso, Oscar (1960). "Ch. 2". Padre Pio, the priest who bears the wounds of Christ. McGraw-Hill. pp. 13, 15. LCC 60-15686.

New Information: Padre Pio Under Investigation

Certain sections of the present Wikipedia article on Padre Pio are made obsolete by the 2011 publication: Padre Pio Under Investigation by Francesco Castelli. Also for Italian readers, Padre Pio L'ultimo Sospetto makes a factual contribution to the knowledge base.

Noumenon1995 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed this article can use more sources. Luzzatto does not have a monopoly on the topic of Padre Pio.

Not to mention the following article alone as quite an extensive bibliography on Padre Pio's wounds alone. Other doctors who investigated him such as Dr. Luigi Romanelli , Dr. Bignami, Dr. Festa, and others should be considered. There is definitely more knowledge that can be added to this Wikipedia article. (https://caccioppoli.com/6%20Examinations%20of%20the%20wounds.html#_ftnref23) Harmoonie (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Structure

Why are there two sections on his stigmata? Wouldn't it be better to merge them? Theeurocrat (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Move Proposal

I know this issue has been raised in the past, though no substantive discussion came about. I am not aware of any instance where in common parlance one would refer to the individual in question as Pio of Pietrelcina in place of Padre Pio. Granted that St. Pio of Pietrelcina is the official Vatican-sanctioned name, WP:OFFICIALNAMES quite clearly explains that official names are to be used as the titles of articles only when they are also the common name. This is reiterated at MOS:SAINTS#Saints and an example of this in practice is Joan of Arc. In this case, unless anyone can demonstrate that Pio of Pietrelcina is more commonly used than Padre Pio, the latter should be preferred. There is already a redirect from Padre Pio to Pio of Pietrelcina. Therefore, I propose moving this article from "Pio of Pietrelcina" to "Padre Pio" and denoting in the lede sentence the former name under which he was canonized. Ergo Sum 03:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hagiography

This article is a hagiography and not an encyclopaedia article. Frankly most of it is cringe inducing to read. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that he's a saint, it's a "hagiography" (in an ultra-literalistic sense) by definition. Did you not notice the long section on criticism? What exactly is so terrible about this article? Be specific so we can actually address your concern. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pio's WP:COMMONNAME in the infobox

Hi Randy Kryn. No one's going to look for "Francesco Forgione", or expect to see that listed in the infobox header. It's already listed in the lead and in the "born" section of the box. See here, too. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Padre Pio & Pope John XXIII

Additions and sources:

  • Many liberal Catholics, including the late Pope John XXIII, were sceptical of Padre Pio, and hostile to the traditional faith he represented. He was twice investigated by the Vatican in the 1930s and at one stage was banned from saying mass. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/02/arts.italy)
  • Even if this ban was lifted by Pius XI in 1933, the suspicions didn’t wear off. Nearly three decades later, in 1960, Pope John XXIII ordered a thorough investigation of the Capuchin, resulting in the Holy Office limiting his public appearances once more. It was only in 1964 that Padre Pio was able to say Mass without any restriction, at the request of Pope Paul VI.(https://aleteia.org/2018/03/16/padre-pio-and-the-popes/)
  • Further sources: Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age, Sergio Luzzatto (Picador, 2011) Doctoral historian (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You failed to mention that Pope Paul VI restored Padre Pio and what you say it's extremely repetitive.
  • In 1933 Pius XI ordered the Holy Office to reverse the prohibition of the celebration of mass of Padre Pio. The pope declared: "I have not been ill-disposed towards Padre Pio, but I had been misinformed." Pope Pius XII, who assumed the papacy in 1939, encouraged devotees to visit Padre Pio. It will be almost 30 years until he is persecuted again by the Holy Office, being Pope John XXIII. However, after the death of John XXIII (June 3, 1963), Pope Paul VI rejected the accusations of his predecessor. Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC).
@ Doctoral historian: Thank you for your valuable remarks. Many clerics were of the opinion that Pio was a fraud and that his cult had to be controlled. Indeed, the most important book on that issue is by Luzzatto (Italian, Engl. translation), which is the only scientific monography on Pio. Pio seems to have used different substances and drugs in order to keep (or even produce) his wounds (called stigmata, Luuzzatto, 2011, p. 93). He was close to the faschist movement (Luzzatto, 2011, p 70). The canonization is based on the opinion of at least SOME clerics, and especially on John Paul II. Pope John XXIII was very sceptical on Pio and is an important voice of rational dealing with this guy. Parts of the article are idealizing Pio, seem to be more a hagiographic view than an article in an encyclopedia.Mr. bobby (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My intention was only to list several sources (articles) to show that there are many different opinions and reports on how the different popes, especially John XXIII, viewed him. Most popes, as I have understood it, saw him as a more or less a benevolent figure.Doctoral historian (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Stigmatist

The lead says pio was a stigmatist. I propose changing this to say “reported stigmatist” as it is a paranormal phenomenon, not demonstrated through science. Thoughts? Contaldo80 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There might be an endless debate on that topic. From a non-religious point of view there is no god who sends stigmata to a certain guy, in order to have him look like Jesus and so on. But then you had to change many religious articles (and in many cases it would be a good thing to do so). At least, there should be a certain concern, that not all people see things in an religious way or that many people had severe doubts on Pio. There even were many clerics which doubted the supernatural character of these wounds, of his miracles and so on. Especially Pio was extremely controversial, right from his alleged stigma-start. And you are right: In the lead should be a clear amount of distance to the hagiographic view of Pio. If you read Luzzatto, you'll get the clear impression that Pio was a fraud. He even plagiarized another mystic - Gemma Galgani - , telling his "spiritual leaders" in HER WORDS, what he allegedly experienced. Pio in particular obviously used deception, used carbolic acid and was close to fascism. In the end, he succeeded - when Wojtyla canonized him. So Wikipedia should show the different views on this guy.Mr. bobby (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I deem it quite unnecessary. The general consensus/approach in scholarly writing has been to write that he received the stigmata. Any elaboration on views of less gravity on purported falsehoods or minor criticism, belongs to the segment Controversies. (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Padre-Pio)Doctoral historian (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Doctoral historian: The article of the Encyklopdia Brittanica is written in a completely catholic manner. They even write about a rumour such as the first appearimg of stigmata in 1910. WP must not repeat the mistakes of EB. Forget that "article". Mr. bobby (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree Mr. bobby - the article needs rewriting. It's too much of a "love in". Doctoral historian - there is no scholarly opinion that he received the stigmata. No serious secular historian or scientist would support such a ridiculous statement for paranormal normal activity. We should assume instead that it was fraud and deception, but that some people believe what happened was true. That is the default, not the other way around. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Contaldo80: Yes, I think, you are right. Of course one cannot say that "he recieved the stigmta" because then you have to believe in a catholic view of the world. And even many important catholic clerics did not believe that Pio "recieved the stigmata". It is only true, that he had wounds in his hands (no pics of wounds at his feeet!). And the whole book of Luzzatto - the only scientific monography on Pio - shows the details of his deception (f. i. his secret orderings of medicaments, his plagiarism of other mystics, his conenctions with fascist politicians, financial transactions). Of course, Pio was a fraud.Mr. bobby (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Mr bobby - if there is any wording in the current version of the article that is still problematic then please flag and we can try to fix. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There are very many problems with the article. The most important ist the massive use of doubtful sources like the internetpage "Padre Pio". Many souces deliver catholic views of Pio, or let's say the Wojtyla version of Pio. Then there are many aspects still missing: His use of Veratrine, a drug against pain. He was alleged having sex with several women, some known by their name. Very important are his connections with fascist politicians already in his early years. He had strange financial transactions f.i. he was the owner of a big hospital, although he had a vow of poverty. It is a big list of deceit. The source material can be found in Luzzattos book. Much work still to do. Mr. bobby (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"alleged" stigmatist implies that there could be such a thing as a "real" stigmatist, which is I gather not what you mean to imply. Rather, find some way to indicate that "stigmatist" is a religious and not scientific term, or even leave it out of the lede altogether and discuss it at more length below. 2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:8181:5F2D:BB9C:D3F8 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

newest reverts

@Contaldo80: the user Rafaelosornio is deleting some of my new information. his argumentation is weak. i presume all is about a religious point of view. what do you suggest to do about that? Mr. bobby (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not about if it is an atheist or religious point of view. You are repeatedly trying to put all the Sergio Luzzatto book in the article. The article should be called "What Sergio Luzzatto wrote about Padre Pio". Padre Pio article is an article not a book. It is a lot of copying-and-pasting from the Sergio Luzzatto book. You must summarize the information. Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Rafaelosornio You're saying that mr. bobby's edit "is a lot of copying-and-pasting from the Sergio Luzzatto book" and that he "is repeatedly trying to put all the Sergio Luzzatto book in the article". You are acusing another editor of blatantly violating the copyright, but that is obviously utter rubbish, and I am very sure that you know this. Consider that the books is available on Google Books. Please refrain from further making false accusations against other editors, because that is disruptive editing. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Even if the book is on Google Books is not free. And it is copyrighted. In addition, the complete book is not shown on Google Books, it is a sample, and many pages are not visible for reading. You must buy the book. The book does not have a long time to be released. https://books.google.com/books?id=niyXhmSW2JMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1429946458&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=1429946458&f=false Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
mr. bobby has not violated the copyright by putting text from the book in the article, so what's your point? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I put 2 reasons, copyright and the problem that is so large the Sergio Luzzatto section. The text is there, what I say is that it should be summarized. See the section, all the section is about "According to Luzzatto" and all the references are in fact only one: the Sergio Luzzatto book. That is why I created a section called "Sergio Luzzatto" and it should remain because all this is about what Sergio Luzzatto thought about Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can not copy and paste too much text from a book because it would violate the copyright, according to a wiki administrator told me once. That is why I put the copyright problem. I didn't know that you can put a lot of info of a book. One more thing, the article is about the Padre Pio, not about what Sergio Luzzatto book, in that case I am in favor of an article called: "Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age by Sergio Luzzatto" It must be created. Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Again: You have falsely accused another editor of violating the copyright. Text from Luzzatto's book as not been c&p'ed. You cannot use this as a "reason" for deleting another editor's text if it has been proved wrong. You have made up that reason, and that is disruptive editing. You keep saying that you'd like the text to be summarised. It is summarised already. Citing just one book is perfectly fine, as long as the book can be considered a "reliable source". Stop trying to make up reasons for not having to include the section sourced with Luzzatto. You're flogging a dead horse. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, the text is there. The only parts I deleted were because the section was so large, and it wasn't neccessary but well, I will restore it to do the Sergio Luzzatti larger. The Sergio Luzzatto section can be summarized but anyway, you said it is already summarized. Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Rafaelosornio the consensus is clearly against you. Think about how you proceed or you will be reported for disruptive editing. If you have a genuine concern about copyvio then use the appropriate board. Contaldo80 (talk) 21
08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know you can write and cite many times many parts of Sergio Luzzatto book (37 times the same book), once I cited a book 3 times and the wiki administrator told me that the Cathechism was copyrighted and the article it was about Trinity, not about what Catechism says about Trinity. Finally I accepted I cited it 3 times in all article and it was my mistake. Sergio Luzzato book section is enourmous but well I think is good for you and the lectors. The half of the article is about what Sergio Luzzatto says about Padre Pio, that is why I created a section called "Sergio Luzzatto" in the area of controversies. And you say "I won't accept what one author said in one section". Then summarize the text. It is enourmous and with repeated texts, misspellings, Luzzatto is with double tt and with references that do not exist. I vote for an article about Luzzatto's book or summarize the enormous content of one single author. This article should then be changed to the name "What Sergio Luzzatto wrote about Padre Pio". I will talk to same administator about why I could not cite the Catechism for a third occassion on the Trinity aticle. Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Contaldo80 There is no copyvio. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sergio Luzzatto section must be in the right place: "Controversies" section

Mr. bobby is very upset that his long article about Sergio Luzzatto book was put in the "Controversies section". He must understand that it is in the correct place. I haven't destroyed "his work" as he says, I think he wants that Sergio Luzzatto book is all the article. If he wants the all the article is the Sergio Luzzatto book he can create an article about the same book: "Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age" Mr. bobby, you are free to create the book's article but you cannot make the Pio's article is the Sergio Luzzatto book.

The Sergio Luzzatto book talks about Padre Pio controversies, then the Mr. bobby long article must be in the "Controversies" section. I didn't delete anything, only a repeated text. All his text is there. I had to correct his repeated texts, misspellings, Luzzatto was with double tt and references that do not exist. Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear - you have suggested copy violation. I have had a look at this text and I can't seem to see a violation. Other editors have also said they can't see a violation. Have you registered a complaint on noticeboards about violation? If there is no violation then I go back to the earlier consensus that there should not be a separate section on Luzzattp. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Destructing information

The user Rafaelosornio falsely accused me of violating copyrights. After his shorter block (as punishmet for editwarring) he followed his catholic agenda and displaced several passages which are in no way controversial at other places or even deleteted historical details i took from the central historical book on Pio, from Luzzattos detailed work.

Especially user Rafaelosornio placed the detailed informations on the church investgation of Padre Pio's so called "stigmata" at the end of the article. These facts are in no way controversial. There were simply right from the start of his carreer many problems with church authorities. The passages will be placed where i had them befor. Now, they are separated, content on investigations are in two different places in the article. All seems to a maneuver of having this "saint" seen by a certian catholic point of view - which is POV. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pio as part of Clerical fascism

The reconstruction of Pio's role in the forming of Clerical Fascism is decribed in a German article, using information from the book of Luzzatto: Julius Müller-Meiningen: Padre Pio – Heiliger Scharlatan, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 19. Mai 2010. See also: Urte Krass: Kontrollierter Gesichtsverlust. Padre Pio und die Fotografie. In: Zeitschrift für Ideengeschichte, Heft IV/2 (2010), S. 71–96 (Paraphrase zu S. 74) https://www.z-i-g.de/pdf/ZIG_2_2010_krass.pdf. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

While I'm happy to include a paragraph - which we have - about how Pio engaged with a number of people with pro-fascist links. That is not the same as saying Pio himself was a fascist. That is a highly controversial statement and I'd want to see more than one source referenced if we are to imply it - either through the text or the title. Suggest we hold back on this until we are confident. Many people in Italy in the 1920s and 30s were caught up in the rise of Mussolini without being hard-core fascists. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Nobody says he was a "hardcore fascist". But he had his part in forming this clerical-fascist movement, a connection with clerical partners on one side (like Pio) and political partners on the other. Brunatto, a long time conpanion of Pio, was evrything from criminal to fascist to devout catholic. He made a huge amout of illegal money in German occupied France, was a spy in the service of the fascist government. All this is said in the part of the article. And it is also part of a newspaper article referring to Luzzatto. So it is not my invention or so, it is simply the reconstruction of Pio's activities. Brunatto paid about 500 Mio Lire for the hospital. So how would you call these activities? Aftermath? Mr. bobby (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not an article about Brunatto. Be careful that you are not starting to push a particular POV. There is too much innuendo in the sections you added. Plus the section reads very badly. I've suggested we keep this short, simple, and stick to the facts. Otherwise we are trying to construct a highly controversial picture based on some very tenuous sources. If you think there are particular points to be included then raise them here and we can discuss. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your are simply wrong. First you tell the reader that the connection of Pio with fascist does not get clear. Then you delete the reconstruction of this connection - and you write that this would be on Brunatto. You deliver simply a bed of Procrustes. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. bobby I note you have recently been blocked from editing. I now see that you have restored your favoured version of text which is not supported by the sources, is badly drafted and against consensus. I suggest that you restore the previous version and engage in dialogue. Can I also suggest that the phrase "XYoui deliver simply a bed of Procrustes" makes no sense. We are giving you friendly advice. If you continue to ignore it then we will have no choice but to refer to administrators. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Who is "we"? You deleted without consensus this reconstruction, which is well sourced. And you cannot treat a whole passage as innuendo. Pio had these conections, and they should be told a reader in an enzyclopedic article on Pio. Here you als finde a picture of his chamber, his religious activities and also the declaration of his supernatural power. I surely will not redo that. The bed of procrustes makes no sense? yes? First the passage does noct show Pio's conncetion with fascism. Then I write more on that - and you write, the passage would be too long and was too much on Brunatto - which is the link between fascims and the clerioc Pio. If this is not a bed of Procrustes what is? You will stick to the catholic orthographic genius here? Mr. bobby (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It is evident that English is not your first language. Your edits are frankly poorly written and detract from the article. Your comments on the talk page are equally poorly understood. "You will stick to the catholic orthographic genius here" is probably a personal attack (if I could understand what it actually means) ?I advise you to stop being so confrontational and abuse or you will be referred to administrators again. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Luzzatto was alive and he was part of the life of Padre Pio??

What is the meaning of this phrase?

Luzatto's contact with Caradonna led to the establishment of a veritable praetorian guard around Pio, which preventet his removal from San Giuliano Rotondo by the church.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
And it is prevented not peventet.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "What is the mean"? Mr. bobby (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I meant to say "Meaning" Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It is badly drafted and makes little sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Bobby. I suggest creating a section only for you

Mr. Bobby. I suggest creating a section only for you about everything you write called "Controversies" because the only thing you do is that. You write all the controversies that according to Luzzatto happened around Padre Pio's life. One more thing, before publishing on Wikipedia check all your misspellings.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Mrbobby - I agree with Rafaelosornio. You look like you are pushing an agenda without working with others. I advise you to stop. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep your advice. 81.154.168.104 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Brunatto...

...was a fascist spy, paid by the fascist government for doing his work in occupied France. The sources showing his background now are removed from the article. Mr. bobby (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, this isn't an article about Brunatto is it. You are trying to push a conspiracy theory and this is worrying. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. My remarks here are a part of a conspiration theory. Could you carve out the features of such a theory? Mr. bobby (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

By whom?!!

The article currently states:

Saint Pio of Pietrelcina is known[by whom?] as the patron saint of civil defence volunteers, after a group of 160 petitioned the Italian Bishops’ conference for this designation. The bishops forwarded the request to the Vatican, which gave its approval to the designation.

Seriously? Doesn't "a group of 160...civil defence volunteers" and "the Vatican, which gave its approval" answer the question? Did it even need to be asked?Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by tweaking the wording. TheBlinkster (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Castelli's book as a source and the newest changes

Francesco Castelli is a Catholic Priest and was working for the process of beatification of Pio. He is not a neutral souce at all. It is obviously a Catholic fundamanentalist writer. The new changes of the article by user Raffaelosornio all seem to be done from a religious, maybe fundamentalist Catholic point of view. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Before speaking and reversing information you should read the book to yourself. First you must start to learn more, starting to read the "Votum on Padre Pio of Pietrelcina by His Most Reverend Excellency Monsignor Raffaello C. Rossi Bishop of Volterra in ACDF, S.O., Dev. Var., 1919, I, Cappuccini, Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, Folder I, Padre Pio, Document 21 [Printed version of the report by Apostolic Visitor + Msgr. Raffaello C. Rossi]"

This begins:

Votum
on Padre Pio of Pietrelcina
by
His Most Reverend Excellency
Monsignor Raffaello C. Rossi
Bishop of Volterra
in
ACDF, S.O., Dev. Var., 1919, I, Cappuccini,
Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, Folder I,
Padre Pio, Document 21
[Printed version of the report by Apostolic Visitor
+ Msgr. Raffaello C. Rossi]
SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION
OF THE HOLY OFFICE
(Month of January 1922)

_________________

Order of the Capuchins
ON PADRE PIO OF PIETRELCINA
Most Reverend Eminences,
[1] For some years, a humble Capuchin religious of the Province of Foggia, Padre Pio of
Pietrelcina, of the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo, has been the object of such
admiration, discussion, veneration, and curiosity that have well passed the short borders
of northern Apulia to spread and appear not only in all of Italy, but also in foreign
regions, even the far-away Americas. Y. E. [hereafter Your Eminences] already know
the cause of all this. Reputation for an extraordinary virtue, rumors about graces and
“miracles” that are said to have been obtained by Padre Pio, the “gift” of the stigmata
with which he allegedly has been favored, a set of events and singular circumstances
around his person—Padre Pio lives in the midst of populations prone to religious
enthusiasms—all this is what has touched hearts and divided opinions.
[2] With great prudence, the diocesan ecclesiastical authority began by keeping itself
apart from the popular movement: Then it watched, and gave private instructions to the
town’s clergy that they should not take any part in the almost unanimous praise. At the
moment of the Visit it appears to me that it stood aside not very favorably disposed, if
not quite toward the person of Padre Pio, certainly toward what was said about him.

Rossi's Votum is extremely long, it takes up almost half the book, it goes from point 1 to 53, I will only put numbers 1, 2 and 53.

[53] Most Reverend Fathers, I have finished. It is time to draw some practical
conclusions, and it can be done by saying in short: that, as far as I can see and save
errors or better judgment, Padre Pio is a good religious; that, of the “graces” beseeched,
as it is said, through his prayers, many do not hold true—many are only asserted, but
lack a legal proof; that whatever is extraordinary in what happens to the person of Padre
Pio cannot be explained, but it certainly does not happen either by diabolical
intervention, or through deception, or with fraud; that the popular enthusiasm has greatly
waned; and that the religious Community in which Padre Pio lives is a good Community
and one that can be trusted.
It is now necessary to continue to be prudent and to wait; a transfer of Padre Pio
being unthinkable, his superiors must be urged to observe and keep watch—tacitly, not
in an obvious way; the countenance of the “pious women” must be corrected, and their
visits to the church and the convent should be less frequent: In all this, Padre Pio should
be more assertive; Padre Pio should be charitably counseled to be more cautious in his
believing in the spiritual elevation of certain souls. Any form of external publicity that is
too evident must be reduced as much as possible. The Holy Office must be kept current
on all new facts concerning Padre Pio, whether in progress or after the fact. As for his
relationship with Father Benedetto, it will be a sufficient measure if, as I will propose in
due course, Father Benedetto is given prudent general advice regarding the direction of
souls, mentioning in particular the grave prudence that must be used with respect to
Padre Pio, either when interacting with him, or when writing to him. It would be a very
good thing if we could acquire, to consult it, the Chronicle of Padre Pio, which Father
Benedetto is said to be composing, or at least to acquire whatever he is gathering to
write someday on the life of Padre Pio.
Embracing the purple of Your Most Reverend Eminences, I am Your Eminences’ very
humble and obedient servant.
Volterra, October 4, 1921
+ Br. Raffaello C., Bishop of Volterra*
Apostolic Visitor
N.B. After the compendia concerning the report on Padre Pio, there is a brief appendix
with the respective compendium on Father Benedetto.

Then the book continues with more than twenty appendices of various depositions.

Acta sunt haec per me, Visitatorem Apostolicum
L.+S. Br. Raphael C., Episc. Volaterr. Visit. Apost.
NUMBER XX
Third Deposition of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina Capuchin
June 16, 1921-4:30 P.M.
Before me, the undersigned Apostolic Visitor, has appeared, summoned, the Reverend
Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, who, having taken de more the oath de veritate dicenda on the
Holy Gospels, so testified and answered.
Q. Whether he needs to revise anything in his previous depositions.
A. No.
Q. Regarding his nutrition—whether outside the meals with the community he ever eats
anything.
A. Ordinarily, no; unless I’m ill. I drink, sometimes.
Q. When did this raising of the temperature up to 118.4°F start?
A. It’s been several years.
Q. What did the doctors have to say? What did they say while you were enlisted?
A. They were amazed, that’s all. When I was enlisted I also had very high temperatures,
but I always tried to hide it: One time, luckily, the nurse attributed it to a faulty
thermometer.
Q. Regarding the “stigmata”—whether he really can’t recall anything that might have
been already there, before the manifestation of the sores.
A. I felt pain in those same areas, of the kind that I felt later on. This pain started around
1911-1912, during my first years of priesthood.
Q. And when these sores appeared, what did they look like?
A. They were red, dripping a little blood.
Q. Going back in your memory again, do you recall ever treating these sores, having
applied anything, etc., besides what you have already testified?
A. No, besides what I have said. Examined here the petroleum jelly; it turns out to be
starch glycerolate.
Q. And what do you think is the origin of these so-called stigmata?
A. I don’t know, I told the authority, the [spiritual] director.
Q. And what did the director tell you?
A. I think he didn’t give his opinion. He told me: “Humble yourself ever more before the
Lord.”
Q. Who is your director?
A. The Most Reverend Father Benedetto of San Marco in Lamis.
Q. Since he is usually absent, how does he direct you?
A. Through letters, as far as it is possible, and when he comes here.
Q. How frequently does he write or come here?
A. A month doesn’t go by without him writing to me, sometimes more, sometimes less.
It has been several months since he has been here, because he is now in Rome.
Q. About the ability to read into people’s hearts that is attributed to him.
A. A very few times I happened to feel inside me with clarity someone’s fault, or sin, or
virtue—of people of whom I had some knowledge, at least generally.
Q. Whether you remember having rebuked Dr. Romanelli of Barletta for some profanity
he had pronounced, of which he had no memory.
A. I know I have rebuked him, but I don’t recall precisely the reason.
Q. People also talk about episodes of bilocation. What does he have to say.
A. I don’t know how it is or the nature of this phenomenon—and I certainly don’t give it
much thought—but it did happen to me to be in the presence of this or that person, to be
in this or that place; I do not know whether my mind was transported there, or what I
saw was some sort of representation of the place or the person; I do not know whether I
was there with my body or without it.

As you can see, these are not the words of Castelli but of Rossi and Padre Pio. Before reverting, you should read what the book is about, a 90% of the book is only documents of all apostolic researchers, they are not words of Castelli.Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The user Rafaelosornio obviously is doing Original Research with citing primary sources at lenght. He judges sources and deletes those which do not fit his fundamentalist Point of View. 11:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No Original Research

The article meanwhile is stuffed with primary sources by Raffelosornio. This makes no good article, in fact this is Original research. This not allowed: Wikipedia:No original research. And it gets even worse, because Rafaelorsonio tends to illustrate his own religious believes on Padre Pio. Rafaleosornio even cites a whole interview verbatim. This - as many other changes by this user - ist not adequate in an encyclopedia. Additionally, he wants to stress the alleged supernatural aspects of Pio in an obviously fundamentalist way.Mr. bobby (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The documents of the inquisitors is not original research, the article must show all the information, the article is not about Luzzatto's book but about Padre Pio, before editing an article you should consult more sources and inform yourself, not just read the book by Luzzatto.Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And aagain: As anybody can see now, user Rafaelosornio obviously is doing Original Research with citing primary sources at lenght. He judges sources and deletes those which do not fit his fundamentalist Point of View. Mr. bobby (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not original research, on Wikipedia the exact phrase of the book is put. Those quotes in the article are Rossi's own words. They are not mine.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This IS original research!Mr. bobby (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
When I quote the exact words of what the inquisitor Rossi said about Padre Pio is not original research because it is documented, and not by me. And if you realize, in the article the phrase "According to ..." is placed, to refer to which person said that content. If I put a text from an encyclopedia or book, it is allowed as long as the source is trustworthy. For example, if I put a text from an encyclical, even a primary source is allowed. According to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources that have been published by a trusted source can be used on Wikipedia.Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand what an encyclopedia is and how it works. Instead, you do kind of worship here. Mr. bobby (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio I highly doubt that an Italian book contains English text. Therefore, I believe that the quotations are false and they definitely ought to be removed. Wikipedia also has policies regarding quotations, here is a quote from WP:QUOTE: "Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhand method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles". I believe that your edit is an attempt of putting non-neutral content into this article – one should use paraphrases in this case; there is absolutely no reason for putting disproportionate emphasis on religious speech without clearly explaining what one person meant to express; exampli gratia the article should not quote the Pope telling an Archbishop that he doesn't like to be called "Holiness". Instead, in this particular case, the article should tell the reader that Archibishop Andrea Cesarano attempted to convince Pope John XXIII that there were no acts of sexual intercourse between Padre Pio and women who were not mentioned by name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia – vague and unclear descriptions do not belong here. We don't have to talk about excavation tools, we can call a spade a spade! Please fix this yourself to prevent further edit-warring. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Johannes MaximilianThe source of the book is in Italian language, I brought it from the Padre Pio's Italian Wikipedia. It's true, the quote is very long and with vague texts. It has already been reduced. Thank you very much for your comment.Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place where you can put unreliable sources.

The user Mr. Bobby adds a an simple article in the German language that says that Padre Pio was a supporter of Mussolini, and the article as a source for that phrase cites Luzzatto's book.

Well, if this is true, where in Luzzatto's book does it say that? On Wikipedia one cannot put references of unreliable sources .--Rafaelosornio (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If the german paper is a reliable source then that is enough. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you know the German language? Said article in the German language says that Padre Pio was a follower of Musolini citing Luzzatto without specifying where in the book Luzzatto said that.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing Wikipedia to a religious fundamentalist textbook

In the following I show the changes of user Rafaelosornio, who tries to have religious Points of View in the article on the controversial Padre Pio:

Rafaelosornio cites at lenght the version of Pio. This is Original Research. Rafaelosornio does not cite secundary literature, but lets Pio speak

Again, a giant quotation. Original Research. Pio asserting he can bilocate!

R. cites the Castelli-book and asserts it as a source which documents fifty (!) years of blood flowing, that smells like perfume. Absurd! (This is what Pio might have told his audience.)

R. delivers a quotation in English, citing an Italian (sic!) collection of primary sources (by Rossi or Pio). Who translated that? Rafaelosornio???

R. delivers a quotation in English, citing an Italian collection of primary sources, this time citing Pio. Obviouslys Rafaelosorni translates form Italian (is he able to understand Italian?) into English (is he able to understand English???) Thereby he contradicts the depiction of Luzzatto and deletes it without any discussion! This an act of vandalism.

Rafaelosornio deletes a whole source, claiming it would not be correct. But HE is the one who says that and deletes it - without any discussion!

Another source says exactly the same as Urte Krass: https://cfitampabay.org/news/padre_pio_scandals_of_a_saint/ So you cannot simply take this out. Besides Pio was supporting the upcoming fascism.

Again, Rafaelosornio translates Italian into English without any hint to this process. This is misleading any reader.

Change of formulation without consense.

Rafaelosonio adds: "In his 2005 book, Padre Pio and America, however, author Frank Rega reveals what the acid was actually used for:" This is no neutral encyclopedic speech. It is simply adoration.

Rafaelorsorni adds that the black-market dealer Brunatto converted (to Catholicism??). But Rafaelorsonio seems to confound Brunatto with "commander Jackson" , a completely different person (see page 219).

Rafaelosornio distorts a completely clear passage by Luzzatto without discussion.

Rafaelosornio adds a glibberish passage, completly strange, not encyclopedic, distroying the clarity of the former version.

Rafaelosornio changes the passage - without consent - to: "This time Pio allowed him to see the wounds." This is adoration.

Rafaelosornio cites a giant quotation. This is Original Research. He does not use secundary sources. And it is non-encyclopedic.

Deleting of a whole passage of a planned sculpture. Without consent.

Rafaelosornio cites a giant quotatio, again from Italian to English, without any reason. Meanwhile even Rafaelosornio deleted that rubbish.

Rafelosornio deleted the word "alleged" - as if the paranormal phenomenons were real. Maybe a (small?) part of the Catholic church is of that opinion. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! Mr. bobby (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Rafelosornio I think you need to take a step back and edit this article in an impartial way. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Bobby. It seems that you don't know English, Luzzatto's book says:
Bignami wrote: “We can in fact hypothesize that the lesions we have described began as a pathology… and then were, either unconsciously or by means of suggestion, filled out in their symmetry and artificially maintained by chemical means, for example with tincture of iodine."
And no, I am not confusing Emanuele Brunatto with someone else, Luzzatto himself says that Brunatto converted after meeting Pio (page 156)
The exact words of what Inquisitor Rossi said about Padre Pio remain as such, that is why the phrase begins "according to Rossi"
You say "Gemelli let Pio show him the wounds", is it correct? And I say "Pio allowed Gamelli to see the wounds" The question is: Who gave Gemelli permission to see Padre Pio's wounds? Gemelli or Father Pio? And since when to say: "Pio allowed Gamelli to see the wounds" is adoration?
About the article in German language, I already told you, the article quotes that Luzzatto said that Padre Pio was a follower of Mussolini, could you give me the page where Luzzatto says that?
Saying "Padre Pio" or "Pio" or Father Pio is the same.
About the quote from the book in Italian that I brought from the wikipedia in Italian, "Contaldo80" have already deleted it, but if you can write a quote from an article in German?Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

F.i. Brunatto's conversion

The addition auf Rafaelorsonio are distorted bei religious views. Every single aspect has to be proved, in order to avoid his simplistic use of fundamentalistic literature. I hope Contaldo will help with checking the evidence.

Let's start with just one point: The conversion of Brunatto. He plays an importnat role in Pios life and was a fascist spy (whi is not yet mentioned in the article). I cannot find a date of his conversion. So the mentioning "who had made his fortune in the black market in German occupied France before his conversion" is Orginal research and must be removed. Mr. bobby (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not original research, the Luzzatto's book says:

The convert, who called himself Emanuele Pederzani, was “a young man I felt I had seen somewhere, but could not remember where.” Until the previous year this Pederzani had been an ordinary unbeliever, devoted to living the good life. Although he’d fought bravely in the war as a captain in the Alpine troops, said Cavaciocchi, he had never bothered to look after his soul, focusing exclusively on pleasures of the flesh. After this young libertine had climbed up to San Giovanni Rotondo and met Padre Pio, however, “he converted. He divested himself of his elegant clothes, burned his novels, began to fast, and for nine months now, every morning, no matter what the weather, has gone up that hill to serve mass and take communion.

This “Emanuele” was the same one who, two years later, would pay a visit to Father Gemelli (calling himself a schoolteacher, although, as it turns out, he had no teaching degree of any kind) and threaten hellfire and brimstone in defense of Padre Pio. With a phony surname—one of the many we’ll come to know him by—this was Brunatto. (Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age; page 156)

Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote above: There is no date of this conversion told by Luzzatto. So the word "before" is clear OR. It must be removed.Mr. bobby (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no a date but it says that after he met Padre Pio he converted. "After this young libertine had climbed up to San Giovanni Rotondo and met Padre Pio, however, he converted" Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If Brunatto still was "young" he may have made his money AFTER his conversion. So what you do is OR and therefore must be deleted. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's no OR, I put another source, you can read it.

None of these sources documents the exact dates of any conversion of Brunatto. One source refers to Brunatto's own point of view (which in fact is hagiographic). Rafaelosorni does original research and also keeps hagiographic views in the article. Therefore the passage has to become deleted. Mr. bobby (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Misleading parts in the chapter on Bignami's examination

  • The whole Part of Rossi, now cited in the chapter on Bignami is nothing but the rather strange opinion of Rossi. The quotation is much too long and also useless an in the wrong place, of course.
  • It does not reflect Bignamis examaination, but Rossi's opinion and fantasies on Pio.
  • In fact the diagnosis of Bignami was " multiple neurotic necrosis" (Luzzatto, p. 38.) Bignami was convinced that Pio faked the wounds and suggests to bind the arms of Pio - then the wound would heal. The version in the article on Bignamis examination is completely misleading. Mr. bobby (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Changed introduction of the article

The introduction was changed, rewritten by the user "SanctumRosarium" obviously from a catholic point of view. This is religious POV. The next reinsertion will be reported as vandalism.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You have to provide details of what was catholic point of view according to you. Then we will be able to improve the introduction. If you don't explain, we won't be able to improve it as you will undo without further explanation. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it is written from a religious point of view, but there is simply no need for that level oft detail at this point in the article in my opinion. Vesuvio14 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
We should always apply the guidelines, which state:
  • "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
  • "the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article", and as a recommendation for article length above 30,000 characters the lead should have three or four paragraphs.
The article length is currently 50,000 characters, two short paragraphs in the lead section are not enough to provide a good overview of the content of the article. Also if you look at any FA biography article, all of them have a lead section of three or four paragraphs providing a concise overview of the article. We have to improve articles in conformity with FA standards, why should this article follow different standards? SanctumRosarium (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you're right that the lead section definitely needs some development, but I feel that parts of it went into too much detail. Vesuvio14 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your review it's helpful, I will be able to improve the lead section now that I understand exactly what was not in line with guidelines and FA standards SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Could you please review the modified version below ?

Francesco Forgione, OFM Cap., better known as Padre Pio and also Saint Pius of Pietrelcina (Italian: Pio da Pietrelcina; 25 May 1887 – 23 September 1968), was an Italian Franciscan Capuchin friar, priest, stigmatist, and mystic. He is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church, celebrated on 23 September.

Francesco Forgione joined the Capuchins at fifteen, spending most of his religious life in the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo. In 1918, his body was marked by stigmata, leading to several investigations by the Holy See, who also imposed temporary limitations on his public appearances. He was involved in the construction of the Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, a hospital built near the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo.

From the appearance of his stigmata until his death, Pio de Pietrelcina was the object of growing popularity among believers, attracting many devotees to San Giovanni Rotondo. Multiple mystical phenomena were reported throughout his life. After his death, his devotion spread throughout the world, emphasized by his beatification in 1999 and his canonization on 16 June 2002 by Pope John Paul II. His relics are exposed in the sanctuary of Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, next to the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo, now a major pilgrimage site.

SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone review the above proposal for the lead section so that we can go ahead with a better version? It would be very helpful to have additional advice. SanctumRosarium (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Pio was totally controversial, both within and outside the Church. The whole issue of the alleged "mystical" phenomena was the cause of controversy for years. And this is not glossed over in the introduction. The article is not changed from the "point of view of the Catholic Church".Mr. bobby (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Terms "controversial" and "controversy" are very vague and should not be used alone. Instead it's better to provide details about the so-called "controversy" and to use a word which better describes it, such as a debate between scholars, a disagreement within a group, different points of view, etc. Now you would like the lead section to mention controversy within and outside the Church, however:
  • so-called "controversy" within the Church is covered in two sentences ("leading to several investigations by the Holy See. The Vatican also imposed temporary limitations on his public appearances"). By the way, this is not a "controversy" at all. In modern times the Church has been very prudent regarding mystical phenomenon and it is usual procedure to launch investigations whenever such phenomena are reported.
  • so-called "controversy" outside the Church is irrelevant, because any mystical phenomenon is by nature subject to debate between believers non-believers. There is no need to change all biographies of mystics to specify that their mystical experiences are a cause of controversy between believers and non-believers, because this is covered or should be covered in the article mysticism and related articles.
SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not part of Catholic propaganda. There are no levitations. Quite simply. And your attempt to bring in this extreme POV here I will simply revert. Pio was a fraud, which is clear from the only serious publication on this charlatan (Luzzatto). Mr. bobby (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to you or WP to decide whether levitations are real. WP is only about facts, and what we actually know for certain is that many mystical phenomena were reported by followers of Padre Pio or by himself throughout his life, including levitation, bilocation and much more. This fact should be mentioned in the article, whatever the veracity, authenticity and origin or such phenomena. Now, please help us write a good lead section in conformity with standards and recommandations. SanctumRosarium (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to determine whether such phenomena did take place. The above lead does not seem to be from an extremely Catholic point of view, but I would suggest calling them reported stigmata rather than simply stigmata. Vesuvio14 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, it would be very misleading to write "reported stigmata" in the article, because readers may think that the stigmata may not be real. Actually there is no debate about the fact that Padre Pio was marked with stigmata, there were multiple medical investigations confirming that. The only debate is about how the stigmata appeared. What do you think? SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
You should stop undoing valuable contributions improving the quality of the article. If you think that such contributions do not respect neutrality, you have to prove it and write another version. You know you can modify the contributions made by other users instead of deleting them entirely. Please stop deleting contributions and try to arrange them if you think you can do better. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
According to Mr Bobby, there are two users who disapprove of the new lead section version. Have you experienced bilocation and become two different users? In reality you are the only one disagreeing here. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph to be deleted

There is a whole paragraph in the biography section desperately trying to prove that Padre Pio had links with fascism. This paragraph is totally irrelevant and misleading and should be entirely deleted:

  • "In August 1920, Pio led the blessing of a flag for a group of local veterans on the feast of the Assumption, and who were developing close links to local fascists". irrelevant and incidental: Padre Pio was visited by millions of people throughout his life, including criminals, communists, fascists, so why is it relevant to report that he blessed a flag for a certain group of people who wanted to develop links with fascists? Unless someone is able to explain why it is notable, this will be deleted.
  • "Pio subsequently met with Giuseppe Caradonna, a fascist politician from Foggia, and became his confessor and that of members of his militia"' irrelevant and incidental: again, Padre Pio met a lot people of all political views. Millions of people came to confess to him, and all of them were sinners. Should me make a list of all people who confessed to him? Unless someone is able to prove that this is a relevant fact, this will be deleted.
  • Luzzatto suggests that Caradonna established a "praetorian guard" around Pio to protect him from removal by church authorities. unreliable: it was only suggested and not proved as a fact. This is not a tribune for Luzzatto's thoughts. Unless someone has a better source for this, it will be deleted.
  • An early biographer of Pio, Emanuele Brunatto, also mediated between Pio and the leaders of the growing Italian Fascist movement. vague and confusing: mediated for what? How it this notable? Unless someone can provide details about such mediation and explain how this is relevant, it will be deleted.
  • Brunatto later donated his locomotive manufacturing company to Pio, which boosted the purchase of stocks by shareholders. highly doubtful: capuchins take a vow of poverty, they can't own anything. Unless someone can provide another source for this, it will be deleted.
  • Brunatto's publisher, Giorgio Berlutti, had been an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini's March on Rome, and used the biography to raise Pio's profile. out-of-scope: this is an article about Padre Pio, not about Brunatto and his publisher. The fact that Brunatto's publisher was a supporter of Mussolini has nothing to do with Padre Pio's life. Unless someone can explain how this is relevant here, it will be deleted.
  • It has been suggested that "a clerical-fascist mixture developed around Padre Pio". unreliable: a suggestion by anti-Pio journalist doesn't make it a fact. WP is about facts, it's not a tribune for all anti-Pio delusions. It will be deleted.
  • According to a German article quoting Luzzatto, but without giving the exact source of Luzzatto's words, "Pio also took a positive attitude towards Benito Mussolini". unreliable: this statement itself admits its own unreliability. It will be deleted.

SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that this paragraph should be entirely deleted; the information seems relevant and it does seem to be referenced (although I have not had a chance to check their validity). However, I do agree that some more references would be ideal. Perhaps the section can be slightly reworked if it does not accurately reflect references. Vesuvio14 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Most of the literature on Pio was written by followers and must therefore be considered hagiographic. The most important publication about Pio's life is by the historian Luzzatto. It describes in detail and proves with sources that Pio - despite his vow of poverty ! - was in fact the owner of a huge company, the ways in which the money for the hospital was raised, the statements of the pharmacist about phenol, with which the fake stigmata were produced, etc. "Anti Pio journalist" is false and decidedly misleading. The intention here to put a whitewashing of Pio's falsifications and political extremes in Wikipedia is abundantly clear.Mr. bobby (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
You're right we should really look into it because Padre Pio owning a company is less probable than bilocation and levitation. Also this paragraph should be moved in section "Political views" as it is discussing his alleged links with people allegedly having fascist views. What do you think? SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
You first should read a book not based on religious POV.Mr. bobby (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I see your intention to whitewash the Pio article. Nothing will be deleted by you. Your user name obviously is programmatic. Mr. bobby (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WP principles and recommendations should always be applied in articles. If some content is not in line with WP principles, it should be modified or deleted. User names have nothing to do with that. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"Reported" instead of "alleged"

Title section "Alleged preternatural phenomena" should be renamed "Reported preternatural phenomena". "Alleged" is not neutral as it "can imply that a given point is inaccurate" (WP:ALLEGED). This is not "whitewashing" or imposing a "Church POV", this is about following WP guidelines. Please refrain from reverting edits applying official recommendations. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There are many things that "can imply a given point is inaccurate", f.i. the experience of religious people under stress or in religious trance. therefore: alleged! Mr. bobby (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC).

The origin and the nature of mystical experiences are not relevant here. The only thing that matters in this discussion is that some terms are to be avoided in articles because they are not neutral. Although "alleged" is not the same as "fake" and "invented", it is still biased because it implies that something never happened. "Reported" is neutral because nobody will disagree that preternatural phenomena have been reported. Why do you insist on keeping "alleged" while "reported" would be perfectly fine and neutral? SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, changing the title section to "Preternatural phenomena" would be perfectly neutral as well and even better than with "reported". We should have a vote and keep the most chosen version, then we'll have to accept the results. SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
You should read WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to leave such questions open. "Alleged" is the right word here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Not according to WP:ALLEGED. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Then another word is needed which tells the reader that it is not a fact but just a belief by some people. See WP:NPOV, which is a policy, while ALLEGED is just a guideline. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. Writing "alleged" would be taking a side. Writing "reported" would be perfectly fine here. Also simply removing "alleged" would be perfect as it's a title section, not a sentence. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You should still read WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
People claim this guy could hover in the air and be at two places at the same time. Those are extraordinary claims, and because of WP:FRINGE, we cannot just treat them as ordinary statements. It does not matter that the people who believe that believe it for religious reasons. It's crazy stuff and needs to be treated as crazy stuff. Minor WP pages like WP:ALLEGED lose against the basic principle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI don't apply here, because these are not scientific claims, it's all about religion. Please see WP:RNPOV instead. Bilocation, levitation and stigmata are mystical phenomena which many other saints are said to have experienced. We are talking about a section heading here, not about a sentence. A heading like "Preternatural phenomena" would be perfectly fine, while "Claims of preternatural phenomena" implies that reports of such phenomena are false. SanctumRosarium (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This is bullshit. Wikipedia cannot say in its own voice that Pio could do those things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
"Preternatural phenomena" as a heading doesn't imply at all that such phenomena are real and authentic. This is very different from "Verified preternatural phenomena", or do you claim it's the same thing? SanctumRosarium (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Preternatural, paranormal, UFO and so on are words that gullible people interpret as real instead of the actual definition of "dunno what that was". If we say something is "preternatural", we de facto embrace the belief that something spooky was going on.
We cannot say that Muhammad rode on the flying horse Buraq, only that a Muslim belief says so. Pio is the same as Buraq. The aviation abilities of both need to be treated as beliefs, not as facts. Fancy words like "preternatural" serve to hide the distinction and should not be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Then change the heading and content to "Mystical phenomena". SanctumRosarium (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Tomato, tomahto. The "phenomenon" part is the fringey one. We don't have a phenomenon, we have tall tales. "Tall tales" would be a better header. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
What about "Reputation for miracles"? SanctumRosarium (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
You keep missing the point and suggesting wordings that still suggest that it is a real thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Miracles are about faith and religion. There is no possible confusion when using this word. Readers will immediately understand what this is about. SanctumRosarium (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no possible confusion when using this word. Right. When Wikipedia says miracles are real, there is no possible confusion, they will say Wikipedia has gone Conservapedia. --15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you should read again. Writing "Reputation for miracles" is very different from writing "Miracles are real". Do you really believe these are the same thing? Maybe you are confused, other readers are not. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
"Reputation" is an acknowledgement. If I say someone someone has a reputation for doing something, I say he is doing something and people know it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Using the word "miracles" leaves no doubt about the context. "Reputation of miracles" obviously implies among believers. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I will stop arguing here not because I agree but because I am getting tired of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

There are simply those believers in Padre Pio who believe the most absurd things: flying through the air, being in two places at the same time, predictions (which are seriously disputed)..... In fact, he had provided for illegal profits in company sales and was the owner of a huge company despite his poverty vow, he let himself be used as a straw man for the construction of the hospital, he had mistresses, gave kisses during confession, he quite obviously used phenol in making his "stigmata". The list of his offenses is long. John Paul II turned the agenda and canonized him for ecclesiastical political reasons (restoration of archaic Castholicism). Canonization at JP was KIrchenpolitik, and ultra-conservative at that. But this need not touch us as far as the "miracles" are concerned. This is all nonsense and has to be called accordingly. By the way, important church representatives have also seen it this way (Maccari, Gemelli). Sanctum Rosarium obviously needs a ban for this site, because he opposes majorities.

Besides, most of the sources describing these miracles and all that are totally inadequate hardcore POV sources from the internet. They all need to get out.

To my knowledge there is only one (!) secular and good biography on Pio: that is Luzzatto.Mr. bobby (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Rosarium changes things and words whenever he wants - against conset. He really needs the ban.Mr. bobby (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you asked consent when you removed many citations and paragraphs? There is no need to ask consent for each edit. If you disagree with a specific change you have to discuss instead of automatically reverting. SanctumRosarium (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In the German WP, on the article "Pio", I have struggled for years with a fundamentalist person. Turris Davidica. She was infinitely blocked. The whole thing here is strongly reminiscent of this first conflict and SanctumRosarium is named similarly to Turris, has the same fundamentalist preferences (it is often about Mary !! and fundamentalist aspects of Catholicism) and "he" - or ben she - acts exactly the same.Mr. bobby (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Very lousy arguments

Arguments given by User:Mr Bobby such as "not all about the church", "unnecessary, adring, leaving away the critical voices", "catholic details" and also "two opponents against your opinion" are no reasons at all for reverting valuable contributions. Personal feelings and beliefs should not interfere with the quality of articles and with the application of guidelines and recommendations. You really should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section before automatically reverting all edits in the lead. Please read it carefully and maybe you will finally understand that the lead section should summarize the content of the article. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Mr. bobby talk contribs‎ 80,042 bytes −5‎ Undid revision 1118731505 by SanctumRosarium (talk) nonsense. main source is luzzatto. secualr and showing all the cheatings of pio (stigmata with phenol, financial transactions, female lovers, fascist activities and so on). Again, it's not about Luzatto, the Church, catholic details, fascism, or anything else. Please forget about all this and focus on what the lead section should be. The lead section should be a summary of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section if you don't understand. A good article should have a good lead section summarizing the main information contained in the article. Please stop reverting all edits with the same arguments all over again "catholic details, luzatto, fundamentalists". When you revert edits in the lead section, your arguments should only come from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Read it. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

There are several issues in the lead section that should be discussed here. Please do not comment below before reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

Length
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section recommends that the lead contain three or four paragraphs when the article length is more than 30,000 characters. Currently the article length is 50,000 characters and has only two very short paragraphs containing only very limited information. The lead should be expanded to at least three paragraphs in accordance to recommendations. All featured biography articles that long have at least three paragraphs in the lead, more often four paragraphs. We should do the same for this article to improve its quality.

Summary of the article
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Currently, the lead doesn't provide a good overview of the information contained in the articles for the readers. Indeed:

  • the longest section in the article is titled Investigations by medical and church authorities, but these investigations by the church are not even mentioned in the lead section.
  • another very long section in the article is titled Reported preternatural phenomena, but the words "preternatural phenomena" or similar words are not even mentioned in the lead. Only the stigmata are mentioned in the lead, while in reality, many more mystical experiences were reported, as the articles explains it. The lead should mention that various mystical experiences were reported.
  • another very long section is Posthumous veneration. In the current lead, there is nothing about popular veneration and about exposition of relics in the sanctuary of San Giovanni Rotondo. The lead should include these information.

Word to watch
According to MOS:LABEL, the word "controversy" should be avoided, and instead give readers information about relevant controversies. The word "controversy" in the lead section should be replaced by more detailed information.

Now can we please discuss these three points and reach an agreement on how to improve the lead section, only focusing on recommendations from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? SanctumRosarium (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Pio was always controversial, had supporters (including fascist ones) and enemies. This is still true today. The secular historian Luzzatto describes the endless tricks of this impostor. Pio was instrumentalised by the ultra-conservative Pope John Paul II. The money for the hospital came from UNRRA and a dubious guy, a criminal close to fascism (Brunatto). The "supernatural" phenomena have all been refuted many times, including by church members. The stigmata were made with phenol. All this is neatly presented in the article . It does not belong one-sidedly from the Catholic point of view (POV) in the introduction. Mr. bobby (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you really read the article? The article doesn't state that the mystical experiences were fake. The article only presents various investigations and theories about the mystical experiences. That's not at all the same thing as stating, as you're doing, that the experiences are false. Also have you read the above arguments about "Length" and "Summary of the article"? Do you have anything to say about that? Again, for the hundredth time, this is not about Luzatto or the Church, this is about applying official recommendations on the length and content of the lead section. Until you have any valid argument, we should keep the new version. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Mr. bobby Would you agree to introduce a request to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? As there are no other user currently involved in this discussion we can request someone else to give an external opinion. That would probably be helpful instead of continuously reverting each other. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A request has been introduced at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Padre Pio, you can add your own comments. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

New request here : Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Padre Pio SanctumRosarium (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You are digging your position's grave here. All those noticeboards (I also alerted WP:FTN) will send people here who know policy better than you do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo of Pio has to be replaced

The photo of Pio in the article is completely inappropriate. In the description of the photo you can read:

This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: artificial colorization and background blur process, made for enchance quality in devotional postcards.

This means that Wikipedia uses a devotional for documentation. The original photo looks like this:

https://reflectionsonthesacredliturgy.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/st.-padre-pio.jpg.

One sees a grizzled demonic-looking old man. The retouched photo used is misleading, embellished and does not represent documentation. It can be shown as embellishment in the adoration part of the article. But ist has to be removed from the first place of the article. Mr. bobby (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

According to MOS:LEADIMAGE, avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. The current image is the most known portrait of Padre Pio and is perfectly appropriate here. The original photo is of poor quality and should not be used. SanctumRosarium (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
There has been a clear tendency to turn the article into a hagiography.
  • Treating his "miracles" as real,
  • deletion of connections to fascism,
  • use of a doctored picture.
This is not what Wikipedia is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
You are confused, writing that miracles have been reported is not the same thing as writing that miracles are real. If you think that it's the same thing, you should refrain from editing articles related to religion. Regarding alleged links to fascism, these are pure delusion. In 1920s Italy, almost every one had links to fascists because they were everywhere in the country. The alleged quote from Padre Pio about Mussolini is taken from Brunatto's biography and it should be mentioned in the article because it's misleading not to specify this. Luzzatto is using Brunatto against Padre Pio. SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
writing that miracles have been reported needs balance by critics to avoid WP:PROFRINGE.
almost every one had links to fascists Especially the Catholic Church. They also had links to Ustasha and Nazis and helped mass murderers escape justice after the war. Still, it is an notable distinction between those who collaborated and supported, and those who did not.
The alleged quote Ooo, "alleged", huh? Suddenly it is not a bad word anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don’t think there is any need to replace the photo. I don’t think it glorifies him in any way, nor would I say “doctored” is the right word. It has simply been colourised and clarified. Vesuvio14 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree and am somewhat surprised that anyone would want to replace it with a picture that makes him look “demonic”. The objections to the image seem like the quibbliest of quibbles Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"The book clearly says the following"

[3] If the book says that, you need to cite the book. Don't you know the first thing about Wikipedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh right, I forget the source. I will put it.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. See, this is why we have WP:BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Pio and Mussolini

Luzatto calls Brunatto’s way of supporting the Pio cult „a sterling example of clerico-fascism“ (p. 158). Then Luzzatto describes the biography of Pio by Brunatto, who was an admirerer of Pio. The whole quotation is:

>>„Brunatto wanted to demonstrate, complete with direct quotations, how much Padre Pio admired Il Duce. “He’s toiling for posterity,” he has the Capuchin friar saying of the fascist leader. “We pray to God because his life is in danger and the Lord would not want him to go missing just now!“ And all this long before any cardinal or pope had thrown his weight behind Mussolini.“<< (p. 159)

In the article is now:

>>Brunatto wanted to demonstrate, complete with direct quotations, how much Padre Pio admired Il Duce. “He’s toiling for posterity,” “We pray to God because his life is in danger and the Lord would not want him to go missing just now!”<<

Obviously Pio never said they were wrong. So my version of these quotations was correct. I suggest to write now:

>>Pio was a clear supporter of Mussolini very early. According to his biographer Brunatto Pio said about Mussolini: „He [Mussolini] is toiling for posterity,“ and also „ We pray to God because his life is in danger and the Lord would not want him to go missing just now!" << - sfnp|Luzzatto|2011|p=159 - Mr. bobby (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, according to Brunatto... Pio said:... Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

Brunatto later donated his locomotive manufacturing company to Pio, which boosted the purchase of stocks by shareholders. Source Luzzatto says otherwise. He explains that Padre Pio was involved in some way in the purchasing of the company, however he never owned shares of the company nor held any executive position in the company. You can read the whole seventh chapter fourth section yourselves you won't find anything to support such claim. Can someone delete this sentence? SanctumRosarium (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A funny way to argue...and in addition completely off track.Mr. bobby (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please provide the extract in the book claiming that Brunatto donated his company to Padre Pio. If you are not able to do it the sentence will be deleted. It's as simple as that. SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't provide a quote from Luzzatto's book claiming that Padre Pio owned a locomotive company, the sentence will be removed. We can't keep unverified statements in the article. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Fundamentalists at work

User:rafaelosornio and also user:SanctumRosarium are obviously representatives of catholic fundamentalism. In this case it consists of declaring even the most absurd miracle stories about Padre Pio as possible and deleting any criticism of this right-wing radical cleric. So I ask reasonable users of Wikipedia together with me to put a stop to this goings-on. So please look at the recent changes and proposed changes and prevent Wikipedia from becoming a postille of religious fundamentalism. Even classical church representatives and priests have warned against this charlatan, which can be inferred partly from the article. Mr. bobby (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Mr. bobby Actually, this is a good idea. If other editors are seeing this, they are welcome to join the discussion and give their opinion. Also we can request an experienced user to validate whether the recent edits provide more neutrality. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
In Wikipedia you cannot impose your own point of view, simply if you have the evidence that Padre Pio was a charlatan you must provide it, as long as they are reliable sources.
The text of the article itself does not say that Pio was a charlatan, that must be determined by the reader for himself when reading the text. And this is not religious fundamentalism, it is trying to be neutral in the article. If for you Pio was a charlatan, you cannot impose your own point of view on Wikipedia. In the article in German you have done what you wanted, since you are a native of there, but in the English wikipedia you cannot come to impose your own point of view on us. The article requires neutrality. Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You are not neutral and neither is your comrade-in-arms. You both engage in white washing of Pio and permanently contribute to religious POV in all entries you make in WP. In German WP they showed you the limits, and hopefully here too. WP is not a religious encyclopedia.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Next trial: He was involved in the construction of the hospital – what a poor sentence…not clear, not correct, not useful. And the issue with the order is not important for the introduction, too.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What is not correct in this sentence? What is not understandable according to you? Why do you think it is not useful for readers? Please explain with more details. SanctumRosarium (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
did he raise the funds, lay out the gardens, hire the builders? Elinruby (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have had occasion recently to look at a number of articles about manifestations of various supernatural beings of the Hindu religion; nobody is trying to hammer in proofs that of course these miracles never happened. Seems to me that attribution is the key here. That said, the sentence about popularity and the spread of the devotion should be removed unless it can be attributed. Elinruby (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Huffington Post reliability

My question is why does Mr. Bobby remove referenced content? He cannot eliminate what he does not like, the article must be neutral and include all points of view, not just what Luzzatto says, and Bobby eliminates everything that is not Luzzatto's without talking about it. The content said by "Huffington Post" removed by Bobby is as follows:

Nobody disputes Luzzato's claim that Padre Pio ordered carbolic acid for the priory. In his 2005 book, Padre Pio and America, however, author Frank Rega reveals what the acid was actually used for:

"The boys had needed injections to fight the Spanish Flu which was raging at that time. Due to a shortage of doctors, Padres Paolino and Pio administered the shots, using carbolic acid as a sterilizing agent." [1]Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


The source "Rega 2005" is quoted according to the Huffington Post. That is, the original book as a source was not used at all. Instead of it a quotation from the internet version. In addition from it then the whole book is mentioned (unnecessarily) and the whole is quoted also still verbatim (again unnecessarily). Therefore, the whole thing is deleted.

Who wants to have the source in the article, must do the following:

1. he gets the book and reads it

2. he gives the correct page number (sic!!!) of the quotation.

3. he paraphrases the passage instead of quoting in length unnecessarily.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schiffman, Richard (2011-11-28). "Did Padre Pio Fake His Stigmata Wounds?". Huffington Post.

The damage of the article by religious POV continues

The user Rafaleorsornio continues to delete passages that do not suit him because of his Catholic worldview. And in addition he posts corresponding contents, with windy sources practically not at all occupied. I urge all who are interested in a well-founded secular encyclopedia to stop this.Mr. bobby (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The German source cannot be verified. Do you have the link to it? And who is the person who wrote it? Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
[[4]] unable to do proper internet-research?Mr. bobby (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Padre_Pio/Archive_1&oldid=1166353260"