Talk:Padre Pio
 | Padre Pio is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
EWTN source content is modified edit
The EWTN source never says "allegdly". The source says the following:
World War I continued and in July 1918, Pope Benedict XV, who had termed the World War "the suicide of Europe," appealed to all Christians urging them to pray for an end to the World War. On 27 July of the same year, Padre Pio offered himself as a victim for the end of the war. Days passed and between 5 and 7 August, Padre Pio had a vision in which Christ appeared and pierced his side.[1][2]
But Mr. Bobby put the following:
Allegedly at 5 and 7 August, Padre Pio had a vision in which Christ appeared and pierced his side.[1][2] Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- If EWTN is to be used as a source at all (and I think its likely not to pass muster as a RS) then it's statements should not be in wikivoice. Per WP:BIASED common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. as well as bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Really to use the source at all considering its obvious bias of being Catholic proselytizers giving an account of someone canonized by that church based on the conclusions of a religious investigation realls needs a discussion at WP:RS/N --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:PARTISAN says,
Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate
. This is clearly a case where we cannot just embrace the gullible position of Catholic sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Ruffin's book should be used for primary sources edit
User:Horse Eye's Back you removed Ruffin's book as a source because it was not reliable. However Ruffin has used many quotes Padre Pio's letters, so can we at least use the book as a source for Padre Pio's letters? SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why should we be quoting Padre Pio's letters if it isn't WP:DUE? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Padre Pio's letters should be quoted because there has been a lot of reported mystical phenomena about Padre Pio and it is relevant to specify whether such phenomena have been reported by Padre Pio himself in is letters or by his followers. It is relevant for readers to know how Padre Pio described such experiences. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why is that relevant? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Readers expect to read about this. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Readers of pious fairy tales, yeah. Not readers of encyclopedia articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Readers expect to read about this. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why is that relevant? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Padre Pio's letters should be quoted because there has been a lot of reported mystical phenomena about Padre Pio and it is relevant to specify whether such phenomena have been reported by Padre Pio himself in is letters or by his followers. It is relevant for readers to know how Padre Pio described such experiences. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Padre Pio's personal views edit
Some content in this article should be removed because it is either too long or not notable. Padre Pio was not a politician and was never involved in politics so it doesn't make sense to have so much content on his alleged political views. Instead it would be better to add more content on his spirituality as he was a priest and was considered a saint by the Church. Also his views about how women should dress and on television are not notable and should be removed. It is not relevant to include the opinions Padre Pio may have had on every aspect of human life. Instead the article should focus on religion because he was a religious figure. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how WP:DUEWEIGHT works, we focus on what WP:RS cover. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- All this content is from Ruffin's book which is not reliable. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Undue weight to Castelli edit
The article is getting more and more credulous by uncritically accepting Pio's alleged feats of bilocation, celestial visions, demonic attacks etc. All this content is sourced to a single pro Pio biography written by a die-hard believer. A bishop Raffaele Rossi is being quoted citing Pio's stigmata as genuine as a "real fact".
I have raised this issue at WP:FTN [1]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- One thing is what Castelli says and another very different from the words of the inquisitor Rossi. You cannot de facto eliminate the words of the inquisitor Rossi sent by the Vatican to investigate Padre Pio. You must see which are Rossi's words and which are Castelli's, before eliminating left and right.
- And regarding Rossi's conclusion about the stigmata, those are his words, after his first apostolic visit to Padre Pio, and therefore it must be attributable: "Rossi saw these stigmata as a real fact" It does not mean that it is true.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)