Talk:Gabriele Amorth

message: All exorcists who are priests are official. No priest can made an exorcism without the permission of Vatican, except in particular situations. --Ilario 12:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every archdiocese has an exorcist. In those cases when one is needed an available priest may be granted permission to perform an exorcism. When it says "official exorcist" in the article it is refering to the fact that he was officially made the exorcist of Rome. I do not see any problems with how it is written. Dwain 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also be aware that 1.)all bishops have the power to perform an exorcism and 2.)any diocesan ordinary can appoint a priest of his diocese to be an exorcist.  Exorcist do NOT have to be appointed strictly from the Vatican, only by the ordinary (bishop in charge) of a particular diocese. Guldenat (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official exorcist 

message: Of what use is a Controversies section that doesn't state any opposing viewpoints? Downstrike (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Section 

message: In the last few weeks, User Complainer deleted some sections because he thought some citations were of, including the whole Harry Potter controversy. I reverted the edits because they are well sourced. If there are problems, please discuss here before deleting parts of the article --Michael Sch. (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is clear: you read the sources, which are online, and you don't find the facts mentioned. Some of the sources, actually don't exist: there is no such thing as "Catholic Telecommunication". You are welcome to browse through the source material and, if you find something I have overlooked, fix it; the Harry Potter controversy, e.g. it turns out, is actually sourced, but the source reported after its mention is not the right one. However, reverting all my edits uncritically is not constructive behaviour and, since most of the material removed appears fictional, certainly doesn't help the article. As for discussing, deleting unsourced, sidesourced and fringesourced material in BLP is encouraged on wikipedia with a shoot-on-sight policy (you can get the details here; notice the expression "without discussion"). complainer (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Harry Potter claims, from this cathnews page (with a Catholic Telecommunications logo) I found this lifesitenews page which refered to this New York Times coverage and linked to a now dead Gazetta di Modena page. The "cathnews" page was dated 2002-01-04 and not 2000 as used in the article. Now, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has never looked at cathnews but has looked at lifesitenews.com here giving a general note of caution - I guess we could ask their opinion for these specific claims. Alternatively we could reword that section using the New York Times article. (Also,  is a short Gazzetta di Modena article from 2011 quoting Amorth's views pn yoga and Potter. -84user (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Complainer: As you may have noticed, I added a different source to the Harry Potter controversy. It's the original article, where the quotes came from. The Harry Potter claim is easily to verify with a simple google search (Gabriele Amorth + Harry Potter). Deleting it without trying to find a new source is not ok. This also applies to this edit. Yes, the original interview is down and it's a archive.org mirror, but there is no evidence, that the "source is seriously fringe". You can find the same interview with the same source (Sunday Telegraph) on a few different sites. Those were the two edits I reverted, because you removed important parts of the article --Michael Sch. (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but we disagree here: the burden of matching the sources with the statements is on the person who makes such statements; if the sources do not say what he/she claims they say, the edit can be deleted and, in the case of BLP, must be deleted (as a side note, I opposed this policy when it was proposed; I am sticking to it now because wikipedia seems to be extremely touchy about it). Albeit we are certainly welcome to, we do not have the duty to find actual sources for a falsely supported claim. Rather, editors have the duty of not making such claims: it is disruptive behaviour, it makes it very hard to assume good faith and it can, in many cases, be libellious. Editors who do not have sources to support something they seem to remember always have the option of posting it unsourced, with or without a "citation needed" tag. As for the seriously fringe source, as I was referring to http://www.tldm.org/News6/exorcism1.htm, which, imho, should be in the "External links" section of the fringe article.  complainer (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: If anyone is interested this article might make a good candidate for a WP:ITNC (linked on the main page in In the News) nomination under the recently died (RD) heading. However it would need cleanup and improved sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible ITN Candidate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gabriele Amorth. 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/20070105172804/http://ncregister.com/site/article/508 to http://ncregister.com/site/article/508
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified