Talk:Bartolo Longo

Once again the article has been edited to state that "Satanic priests" and "Satan-worship" are real things

We need to avoid spreading these ridiculous urban legends as facts and present Longo's religious claims in the proper context. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wording, tone and objectivity

I think this article has improved in wording, tone, sourcing and objectivity that some of the issue tags can be removed. If other users feel differently, please feel free to state what additional changes should occur here. Otherwise, consensus will be assumed. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Per detag policy I have removed tags for all issues except additional sources for verification. If anyone has objections, please address them here before tagging issues again. Also, if your objections are minor, you'd be best served bringing it up on the talk page or making the change yourself rather than tagging per over-tagging and drive-by tagging policy. I am of the mind that at least a sufficient number of sources have been provided that the final "additional sources" issue is eligible for removal, but I'm less certain of that. I'd like to leave the tag to hopefully attract those who can cite Italian sources to do so, as that is the major problem with this particular article subject. I will also try to find decent translations of sources to provide. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Per detag policy, I am now removing the final tag. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Non monk

Thanks for correcting my mistake there -- there should probably be a concise explanation up front as to what his status was with the Dominicans. I understand that lay members of the order did and still do exist, but this is probably a concept that needs clarification (and specificity as to what it entailed for Longo). Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem! That's a good idea. I have edited the article again to include a reference to the third order to help clarify what is meant by lay Dominican. That should clarify for those interested. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all Third Orders, and not all Third Order Dominicans, are lay. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm going to change the "(or lay)" to "third order, lay Dominican" because in this case, the subject of the article was lay. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the article with additional citations, but agree more citations would be very helpful. I would disagree that the page should be deleted. This is a person of veneration of a major world religion, which I think is sufficient reason for the article's existence. Religion is always a touchy subject, but I don't think the references to Satanism should be wholly dismissed. The subject of the article described himself as a "Satanic priest" and that is sufficient for him to be referred to as a (former) Satanic priest. It would be unwise for contributors to start determining who is a part of what religion, as we then lose our objectivity. It would also be helpful to have those who can speak Italian contribute, as a vast majority of the sources that could be used are not in English. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The objections to this article are based not on facts but what appears to be hatred of the Catholic Church. The absurd statement that there are is "no such thing as Satanism" runs against a long history of literature written by proponents of the practice. The rebuttals against the article contain no evidence for there existence, but rather rely purely on personal opinions.

There is no such thing as Satanism. The only "proponents of the practice" who claim it exists are people like the subject of this article, writing apologetic literature in a Christian context, who suddenly remember that they used to be "Satanic priests." Saying that Longo claimed to be a Satanic priest is accurate; reporting that he was, as fact, is ridiculous garbage. Writing articles in line with reality and not Catholic doctrine is not "hatred of the Catholic Church." Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Satanism" or "satanic priests." This is some legend from an Italian church of 150 years ago that probably not even present-day Catholics still tell. Page needs major rework to justify continued existence under WP guidelines. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of this myself. Certainly there is no such thing, objectively, as "Satanic priests" and it is incorrect (and uncited) to describe Longo as one as if this were a fact. If the article is to say that the Catholic Church believes that there are or were Satanic priests and that this person was one, it needs a better source than one random article written by a person of unknown credentials.

Furthermore, Longo appears to be a beatified person within Catholicism, not a saint, so the infobox should be removed. I do not know how to do this without destroying what information is there. Little help? Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Beatification is part of the process. See "Blessed Miguel Pro" article as an example. I'm pretty sure that policy has already been established. The saint infobox should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeGiraffe (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree here that references to the Catholic Herald newspaper should be deleted. The solution should be to search for additional references to confirm or dispute the Catholic Herald's characterization of the subject, not to just outright delete it as "nonsense". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bartolo Longo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027201739/http://campus.udayton.edu:80/mary/meditations/pompei.html to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/pompei.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)