This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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
- 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
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?
I propose changing the first lines to:
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Two statements from an newspaper article appear in this article.
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)
“ | Because of the unusual abilities Padre Pio was alleged to possess, and his sometimes extreme signs of devotion, such as self-flagellation... | ” |
Where does this come from? patsw 02:36, 1 May 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ruffin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
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)
Why are there two sections on his stigmata? Wouldn't it be better to merge them? Theeurocrat ( talk) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
Additions and sources:
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)
"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)
@ 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)
Contaldo80 There is no copyvio. -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 13:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What is the meaning of this phrase?
What is the meaning of "What is the mean"? Mr. bobby ( talk) 21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Rafaelosornio ( talk) 02:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
SanctumRosarium ( talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
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:
SanctumRosarium ( talk) 14:51, 20 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
New request here : Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Padre Pio SanctumRosarium ( talk) 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
writing that miracles have been reportedneeds balance by critics to avoid WP:PROFRINGE.
almost every one had links to fascistsEspecially 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 quoteOoo, "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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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
- 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
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?
I propose changing the first lines to:
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Two statements from an newspaper article appear in this article.
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)
“ | Because of the unusual abilities Padre Pio was alleged to possess, and his sometimes extreme signs of devotion, such as self-flagellation... | ” |
Where does this come from? patsw 02:36, 1 May 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ruffin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
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)
Why are there two sections on his stigmata? Wouldn't it be better to merge them? Theeurocrat ( talk) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
Additions and sources:
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)
"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)
@ 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)
Contaldo80 There is no copyvio. -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 13:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What is the meaning of this phrase?
What is the meaning of "What is the mean"? Mr. bobby ( talk) 21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Rafaelosornio ( talk) 02:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
SanctumRosarium ( talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
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:
SanctumRosarium ( talk) 14:51, 20 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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
New request here : Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Padre Pio SanctumRosarium ( talk) 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
writing that miracles have been reportedneeds balance by critics to avoid WP:PROFRINGE.
almost every one had links to fascistsEspecially 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 quoteOoo, "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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)