logobossls

1. Don Zauker Esorcista Pdf Merge File

In today's reading Read PDF Don Zauker: Santo Subito Online through the eBook has almost become a reference the best, most practical, most economical and most easy for most people. And it is the basis why people prefer to read Don Zauker: Santo Subito PDF Kindle through. EBooks, rather than buying in bookstores.Missing.

Don Zauker series[edit]

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

Page move/article name[edit]

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)

Appearing to Maria Esperanza before he died[edit]

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

Was the husband the only person present during the transformation? They did not report that Elvis was there too? This lady's website says that she predicted technology (inconsistent to any scientist I tell you) and claims to have predicted the internet too, saying:

'nuclear electronic science, thermonuclear science, and transistonuclear science.' The message, now 23 years old, also seems to have foreseen the internet. 'Electronic computers will [cause] the utmost revolution people could imagine,' she quotes a message from 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on March 18, 1981.'

I am trying not to laugh. And she claims both levitation and bilocation! And The bridge to Heaven: interviews with Maria Esperanza of Betania by Michael H. Brown is not based on investigative reporting, it is based on interviews with her. And the article mentioned is again based on that book. So all roads here lead to interviews with her, and nothing else. The quotes you have are 'nowhere near' WP:Reliable. And she can get submitted for beatification, but that does not a saint make. Many years of investigation will be needed. And please note that this person has an imprimatur and support from her Archbishop (no less) who still supports while and some of her books pages were found to be exact copies of training manuals for seminarians and books written by other authors. So bishop support does not always mean much. Now what does Pilgrimage encyclopedia say exactly? Please state what it says instead of just a blind reference. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilitz is Jewish and so has no dog in this fight. He has authored 9 books and over 40 scholarly articles. The encyclopedia is a reliable source. You seem to be missing the point. Whether or not what Esperanza claimed was true or not is mostly beside the point. The point is she was a notable (now that her cause has been opened) devotee of Pio, indeed he was her spiritual advisor. That she claimed his visitation is credible, notable and reliably sourced (whether or not the apparition/viistation is). As to your pious fraud, it is not surprising if she is copying from seminary texts that her books would get an imprimatur now is it? After all those texts ought to be orthodox. Of course, that is all a red herring. If you want to see what the source says, there's a page cite. It corroborates the matter in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer the Elvis part. As for 'Pio, indeed he was her spiritual advisor', did she ever meet Pio, or was it by bi-location? Or was it when she invented the internet? The point is that she seems to run an 'exaggeration factory', and that needs to be noted - for it is notable. As for the non-pious fraud, she did not say she copied it, but said it was private revelation. Maybe it was and God was just reading the previously published book to her. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

She would not be the first purported mystic to run an 'exaggeration factory'. I am not saying she speaks only the truth. It was not her but the apparitions at Betania which the Bishop in South America approved in 1987. The earlier apparitions, he noted, were seen by few and uneducated people, many of them children. The Bishop notes that the later apparitions witnessed included 'many middle class professional people as: Doctors, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Engineers and Lawyers. There are also numerous college students from the different Universities in Caracas.' Over 100 people saw at least 7 apparitions and signed statements to that effect. The Bishop's 1987 letter, although nearly 6,000 words, mentions Esperanza only once. So, I am not saying her claims in the article are credible, only that it is credible that she made them and that they are now notable because her cause has been opened. If indeed she is an apparent fraud, her cause will go nowhere. Mamalujo (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Parents names[edit]

The article reports his father's name as Grazio. Two works that I have access to^[1][2] have his name as Orazio. Also one of his sisters is listed as Pellegrina. The two works have her name as Felicia. This needs to be clarified. --Auric (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Padre Pio: the true story Page 24 by Bernard Ruffin - 1991 [1]:

'Although he was baptized Grazio, Padre Pio's father was known most of his life as Orazio'.

So there we go. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. What about the sister?--Auric (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not superman, I have no idea on that one, sorry. History2007 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have confirmed the third sister in this link [2]--Auric (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

1. ^Carty, Rev. Charles Mortimer (1951). 'Biography of Padre Pio'. Padre Pio: The Stigmatist. Saint Paul 1, Minn.: Radio Replies Press. p. 1. LCC GN 111.
2. ^De Liso, Oscar (1960). 'Ch. 2'. Padre Pio, the priest who bears the wounds of Christ. McGraw-Hill. pp. 13, 15. LCC 60-15686.

New Information: Padre Pio Under Investigation[edit]

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)

Structure[edit]

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

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

Article Move Proposal[edit]

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

Hagiography[edit]

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

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

Pio's WP:COMMONNAME in the infobox[edit]

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

Padre Pio & Pope John XXIII[edit]

Additions and sources:

• The church did not always embrace Padre Pio. Both his superiors and the Vatican initiated more than a dozen investigations against him, and Pope John XXIII wrote of Padre Pio’s “immense deception.(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/world/europe/pope-francis-padre-pio.html)

• Popes had various opinions of him, however, the harshest being John XXIII, who, a recent book contends, considered him a fraud and a womanizer. In 1960, the pope wrote of Padre Pio’s “immense deception.”(https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/world/europe/25padre.html)

• Many liberal Catholics, including the late Pope John XXIII, were sceptical of Padre Pio, and hostile to the traditional faith he represented. He was twice investigated by the Vatican in the 1930s and at one stage was banned from saying mass. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/02/arts.italy)

• By his own admission, Pope John XXIII had little feeling for ecstatic forms of religiosity. But a later pope, Karol Wojtyła, Pope John Paul II, who worked hard for Padre Pio’s… (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/10/25/strange-victory-padre-pio/)

• Even if this ban was lifted by Pius XI in 1933, the suspicions didn’t wear off. Nearly three decades later, in 1960, Pope John XXIII ordered a thorough investigation of the Capuchin, resulting in the Holy Office limiting his public appearances once more. It was only in 1964 that Padre Pio was able to say Mass without any restriction, at the request of Pope Paul VI.(https://aleteia.org/2018/03/16/padre-pio-and-the-popes/)

• Pope John XXIII, the modernising Pope behind the Second Vatican Council, was even reported to have had the turbulent friar's confessionals bugged, to keep tabs on his activities.(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-who-was-padre-pio-and-why-is-he-the-cause-of-such-controversy-815377.html)

• In 1960, an Italian monsignore, Carlo Maccari, began an investigation on behalf of Pope John XXIII. His 200-page report, though never published, is said to be devastatingly critical. Vatican gossip had it that the “Maccari dossier” was an insuperable obstacle to Padre Pio’s sainthood.(https://cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/04/padre-pio-is-a-perfect-patron-for-pope-francis-year-of-mercy/, http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0614.htm)

• A detailed report on Padre Pio’s alleged wrong-doing was put before Pope John XXIII. It included allegations that Padre Pio had sexualised contact with some women who went to him for Confession. Stefan Campanella’s book is a masterclass in understanding the events leading to the false information given to St John XXIII, and the consequences for Padre Pio. (https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/06/12/fifty-years-ago-italys-most-famous-modern-saint-was-being-treated-like-a-criminal/)

• While the Vatican’s response to Pio and the shrine changed from extreme distrust and suppression during the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, to wholehearted embrace and Pio’s canonisation during Pope John Paul II’ (https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31497429/DiGiovine2012_PadrePioForSale.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1545696041&Signature=23rR8ogn7YC97CdvFIRdv9zooqc%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DPadre_Pio_for_Sale_Souvenirs_Relics_or_I.pdf)

• Not every pope had been so convinced of his saintliness. From 1931 to 1933, the Vatican banned the Capuchin from saying Mass in public or hearing confessions and from all contact with worshippers. John XXIII, elected in 1958, set spies on him. (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/archive/eamonn-mccann/the-other-side-of-miraculous-monk-padre-pio-28478802.html)

• Further sources: Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age, Sergio Luzzatto (Picador, 2011) Doctoral historian (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• You failed to mention that Pope Paul VI restored Padre Pio and what you say it's extremely repetitive.

• In 1933 Pius XI ordered the Holy Office to reverse the prohibition of the celebration of mass of Padre Pio. The pope declared: 'I have not been ill-disposed towards Padre Pio, but I had been misinformed.' Pope Pius XII, who assumed the papacy in 1939, encouraged devotees to visit Padre Pio. It will be almost 30 years until he is persecuted again by the Holy Office, being Pope John XXIII. However, after the death of John XXIII (June 3, 1963), Pope Paul VI rejected the accusations of his predecessor. Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC).

@ Doctoral historian: Thank you for your valuable remarks. Many clerics were of the opinion that Pio was a fraud and that his cult had to be controlled. Indeed, the most important book on that issue is by Luzzatto (Italian, Engl. translation), which is the only scientific monography on Pio. Pio seems to have used different substances and drugs in order to keep (or even produce) his wounds (called stigmata, Luuzzatto, 2011, p. 93). He was close to the faschist movement (Luzzatto, 2011, p 70). The canonization is based on the opinion of at least SOME clerics, and especially on John Paul II. Pope John XXIII was very sceptical on Pio and is an important voice of rational dealing with this guy. Parts of the article are idealizing Pio, seem to be more a hagiographic view than an article in an encyclopedia.Mr. bobby (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• My intention was only to list several sources (articles) to show that there are many different opinions and reports on how the different popes, especially John XXIII, viewed him. Most popes, as I have understood it, saw him as a more or less a benevolent figure.Doctoral historian (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Stigmatist[edit]

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

There might be an endless debate on that topic. From a non-religious point of view there is no god who sends stigmata to a certain guy, in order to have him look like Jesus and so on. But then you had to change many religious articles (and in many cases it would be a good thing to do so). At least, there should be a certain concern, that not all people see things in an religious way or that many people had severe doubts on Pio. There even were many clerics which doubted the supernatural character of these wounds, of his miracles and so on. Especially Pio was extremely controversial, right from his alleged stigma-start. And you are right: In the lead should be a clear amount of distance to the hagiographic view of Pio. If you read Luzzatto, you'll get the clear impression that Pio was a fraud. He even plagiarized another mystic - Gemma Galgani - , telling his 'spiritual leaders' in HER WORDS, what he allegedly experienced. Pio in particular obviously used deception, used carbolic acid and was close to fascism. In the end, he succeeded - when Wojtyla canonized him. So Wikipedia should show the different views on this guy.Mr. bobby (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I deem it quite unnecessary. The general consensus/approach in scholarly writing has been to write that he received the stigmata. Any elaboration on views of less gravity on purported falsehoods or minor criticism, belongs to the segment Controversies. (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Padre-Pio)Doctoral historian (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Doctoral historian: The article of the Encyklopdia Brittanica is written in a completely catholic manner. They even write about a rumour such as the first appearimg of stigmata in 1910. WP must not repeat the mistakes of EB. Forget that 'article'. Mr. bobby (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree Mr. bobby - the article needs rewriting. It's too much of a 'love in'. Doctoral historian - there is no scholarly opinion that he received the stigmata. No serious secular historian or scientist would support such a ridiculous statement for paranormal normal activity. We should assume instead that it was fraud and deception, but that some people believe what happened was true. That is the default, not the other way around. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: Yes, I think, you are right. Of course one cannot say that 'he recieved the stigmta' because then you have to believe in a catholic view of the world. And even many important catholic clerics did not believe that Pio 'recieved the stigmata'. It is only true, that he had wounds in his hands (no pics of wounds at his feeet!). And the whole book of Luzzatto - the only scientific monography on Pio - shows the details of his deception (f. i. his secret orderings of medicaments, his plagiarism of other mystics, his conenctions with fascist politicians, financial transactions). Of course, Pio was a fraud.Mr. bobby (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mr bobby - if there is any wording in the current version of the article that is still problematic then please flag and we can try to fix. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There are very many problems with the article. The most important ist the massive use of doubtful sources like the internetpage 'Padre Pio'. Many souces deliver catholic views of Pio, or let's say the Wojtyla version of Pio. Then there are many aspects still missing: His use of Veratrine, a drug against pain. He was alleged having sex with several women, some known by their name. Very important are his connections with fascist politicians already in his early years. He had strange financial transactions f.i. he was the owner of a big hospital, although he had a vow of poverty. It is a big list of deceit. The source material can be found in Luzzattos book. Much work still to do. Mr. bobby (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

newest reverts[edit]

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

It's not about if it is an atheist or religious point of view. You are repeatedly trying to put all the Sergio Luzzatto book in the article. The article should be called 'What Sergio Luzzatto wrote about Padre Pio'. Padre Pio article is an article not a book. It is a lot of copying-and-pasting from the Sergio Luzzatto book. You must summarize the information. Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio You're saying that mr. bobby's edit 'is a lot of copying-and-pasting from the Sergio Luzzatto book' and that he 'is repeatedly trying to put all the Sergio Luzzatto book in the article'. You are acusing another editor of blatantly violating the copyright, but that is obviously utter rubbish, and I am very sure that you know this. Consider that the books is available on Google Books. Please refrain from further making false accusations against other editors, because that is disruptive editing. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if the book is on Google Books is not free. And it is copyrighted. In addition, the complete book is not shown on Google Books, it is a sample, and many pages are not visible for reading. You must buy the book. The book does not have a long time to be released. https://books.google.com/books?id=niyXhmSW2JMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1429946458&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=1429946458&f=falseRafaelosornio (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

mr. bobby has not violated the copyright by putting text from the book in the article, so what's your point? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I put 2 reasons, copyright and the problem that is so large the Sergio Luzzatto section. The text is there, what I say is that it should be summarized. See the section, all the section is about 'According to Luzzatto' and all the references are in fact only one: the Sergio Luzzatto book. That is why I created a section called 'Sergio Luzzatto' and it should remain because all this is about what Sergio Luzzatto thought about Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can not copy and paste too much text from a book because it would violate the copyright, according to a wiki administrator told me once. That is why I put the copyright problem. I didn't know that you can put a lot of info of a book. One more thing, the article is about the Padre Pio, not about what Sergio Luzzatto book, in that case I am in favor of an article called: 'Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age by Sergio Luzzatto' It must be created. Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Again: You have falsely accused another editor of violating the copyright. Text from Luzzatto's book as not been c&p'ed. You cannot use this as a 'reason' for deleting another editor's text if it has been proved wrong. You have made up that reason, and that is disruptive editing. You keep saying that you'd like the text to be summarised. It is summarised already. Citing just one book is perfectly fine, as long as the book can be considered a 'reliable source'. Stop trying to make up reasons for not having to include the section sourced with Luzzatto. You're flogging a dead horse. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, the text is there. The only parts I deleted were because the section was so large, and it wasn't neccessary but well, I will restore it to do the Sergio Luzzatti larger. The Sergio Luzzatto section can be summarized but anyway, you said it is already summarized. Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio the consensus is clearly against you. Think about how you proceed or you will be reported for disruptive editing. If you have a genuine concern about copyvio then use the appropriate board. Contaldo80 (talk) 21

08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know you can write and cite many times many parts of Sergio Luzzatto book (37 times the same book), once I cited a book 3 times and the wiki administrator told me that the Cathechism was copyrighted and the article it was about Trinity, not about what Catechism says about Trinity. Finally I accepted I cited it 3 times in all article and it was my mistake. Sergio Luzzato book section is enourmous but well I think is good for you and the lectors. The half of the article is about what Sergio Luzzatto says about Padre Pio, that is why I created a section called 'Sergio Luzzatto' in the area of controversies. And you say 'I won't accept what one author said in one section'. Then summarize the text. It is enourmous and with repeated texts, misspellings, Luzzatto is with double tt and with references that do not exist. I vote for an article about Luzzatto's book or summarize the enormous content of one single author. This article should then be changed to the name 'What Sergio Luzzatto wrote about Padre Pio'. I will talk to same administator about why I could not cite the Catechism for a third occassion on the Trinity aticle. Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Sergio Luzzatto section must be in the right place: 'Controversies' section[edit]

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

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

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

Destructing information[edit]

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

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

Pio as part of Clerical fascism[edit]

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

While I'm happy to include a paragraph - which we have - about how Pio engaged with a number of people with pro-fascist links. That is not the same as saying Pio himself was a fascist. That is a highly controversial statement and I'd want to see more than one source referenced if we are to imply it - either through the text or the title. Suggest we hold back on this until we are confident. Many people in Italy in the 1920s and 30s were caught up in the rise of Mussolini without being hard-core fascists. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody says he was a 'hardcore fascist'. But he had his part in forming this clerical-fascist movement, a connection with clerical partners on one side (like Pio) and political partners on the other. Brunatto, a long time conpanion of Pio, was evrything from criminal to fascist to devout catholic. He made a huge amout of illegal money in German occupied France, was a spy in the service of the fascist government. All this is said in the part of the article. And it is also part of a newspaper article referring to Luzzatto. So it is not my invention or so, it is simply the reconstruction of Pio's activities. Brunatto paid about 500 Mio Lire for the hospital. So how would you call these activities? Aftermath? Mr. bobby (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article about Brunatto. Be careful that you are not starting to push a particular POV. There is too much innuendo in the sections you added. Plus the section reads very badly. I've suggested we keep this short, simple, and stick to the facts. Otherwise we are trying to construct a highly controversial picture based on some very tenuous sources. If you think there are particular points to be included then raise them here and we can discuss. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Mr. bobby I note you have recently been blocked from editing. I now see that you have restored your favoured version of text which is not supported by the sources, is badly drafted and against consensus. I suggest that you restore the previous version and engage in dialogue. Can I also suggest that the phrase 'XYoui deliver simply a bed of Procrustes' makes no sense. We are giving you friendly advice. If you continue to ignore it then we will have no choice but to refer to administrators. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Don Zauker Esorcista Pdf Merge File

Who is 'we'? You deleted without consensus this reconstruction, which is well sourced. And you cannot treat a whole passage as innuendo. Pio had these conections, and they should be told a reader in an enzyclopedic article on Pio. Here you als finde a picture of his chamber, his religious activities and also the declaration of his supernatural power. I surely will not redo that. The bed of procrustes makes no sense? yes? First the passage does noct show Pio's conncetion with fascism. Then I write more on that - and you write, the passage would be too long and was too much on Brunatto - which is the link between fascims and the clerioc Pio. If this is not a bed of Procrustes what is? You will stick to the catholic orthographic genius here? Mr. bobby (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It is evident that English is not your first language. Your edits are frankly poorly written and detract from the article. Your comments on the talk page are equally poorly understood. 'You will stick to the catholic orthographic genius here' is probably a personal attack (if I could understand what it actually means) ?I advise you to stop being so confrontational and abuse or you will be referred to administrators again. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

What is the meaning of this phrase?

Luzatto's contact with Caradonna led to the establishment of a veritable praetorian guard around Pio, which preventet his removal from San Giuliano Rotondo by the church.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And it is prevented not peventet.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I meant to say 'Meaning' Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It is badly drafted and makes little sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Bobby. I suggest creating a section only for you[edit]

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

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

Brunatto...[edit]

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

As I said, this isn't an article about Brunatto is it. You are trying to push a conspiracy theory and this is worrying. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. My remarks here are a part of a conspiration theory. Could you carve out the features of such a theory? Mr. bobby (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)