Talk:Communion and Liberation/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Communion and Liberation. 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/20060111162601/http://www.clonline.org:80/ to http://www.clonline.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communion and Liberation. 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/20060821150027/http://www.traces-cl.com/march02/anniversary.htm to http://www.traces-cl.com/march02/anniversary.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221120734/http://ncrcafe.org/node/919 to http://ncrcafe.org/node/919
 * Added tag to http://www.vaticanradio.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=443833

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) 12:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

accusation and fact
The article was full of accusation and peacock section title such as "Private Italian Companies that are illegally controlled by CL". Unless there is court ruling and it was reported by media, it seem a defamation. Matthew_hk  t  c  15:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It was heavily edited since then, thanks for the contribution. Jasmir54 00:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

NPV Violations and Factual Accuracy
This page is extremely biased (try looking on wiki at the italian correspondent to check) and I believe it should be heavily modified. I shall try to make my point (hoping this is the right page):


 * Communion and Liberation is not an "ecclesial group" (it is a Catholic Movement, that's different); it has received accusations of "not being a catholic movement" but other things...I believe all these might be reported, if properly documented, in a proper section not in the main description.
 * No citation is provided for the "de facto advocacy group" and other accuses of the first lines: I think these must be added. And, since we're talking about accusations, this part should be moved into a "Controversies" section.
 * Some members have been condamned, but I don't believe this deserves the first line (we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people of a movement: I don't see in the third line about Greenland information that some of those people are corrupted ...), rather one or more dedicated sections.
 * Many citations are about an investigation, not about the judgment after a trial thus they shouldn't be used for such blunt statements. If inserted, at least the expression "are under trial" or "have been accused of" should be used or more recent citations with definitive (if present) judgment be linked
 * In the "quick list" the "services" offers a list of heavy accusations: these should be justified with proper citations (I believe that, for they way they are currently written, the Movement has grounds to go to trial against who wrote it)

Throughout the article citations are used falsely, for example:
 * the budget is said to be 100 millions but it's nowhere to be found in the cited article
 * the paragraph on "Italian companies" is based on this article https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07/01/riciclaggio-i-soldi-nelle-casseforti-lussemburghesi-di-intesa-sanpaolo-e-ubi-e-quellinchiesta-archiviata/2874832/ where it's talking about an "archived investigation" (in Italian "inchiesta archiviata", that means the judges stopped investigating because there were no reasons to go on with the trial as no real proof was shown). The newspaper "l'espresso" says the story is not finished and that "It might be restarted from Cassazione" (the highest court in Italy) but I believe this gives no grounds to the current status of the paragraph
 * The citation http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2015/06/11/news/julian_carron_un_enorme_delusione_ma_cl_e_agli_antipodi_-116584997/ is a public letter where the founder says (roughly, as a general idea): "I am deeply sorry that some members of the Movement are involved in this investigation. I am very sorry because they've thrown away the good teachings of the movement which are completely different from these accusations" etc. While it is used to support the sentence "Communion and Liberation movement has been accused to illegally get a contract to build an immigration center for million of euro in 2015." (all you can find about this is one question in the cited article is the sentence "l'indagine ipotizza tangenti pagate dal gruppo La Cascina per l'aggiudicazione dei servizi al centro di accoglienza profughi Cara di Mineo", in English: "The investigation hypothesizes bribes paid by the La Cascina group to secure services to the Cara di Mineo refugee reception center": no amount of money, no build related stuff and we're talking about members of the Movement, not the movement itself...). It would be more reasonable to find articles about the investigation/trial results and also cite the position of the Movement's leader
 * Some links are old and incorrect, for instance http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Cronaca/2015/1/23/-RAFFAELLI-CASO-DIEFFE-Raffaelli-la-nostra-esperienza-sia-un-segnale-di-speranza/575511/ reports a full absolution for the appeal trial, but an older article is reported ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_and_Liberation ) where only one of the people was absolved

Other things to point out:
 * There is an official website ( https://english.clonline.org/ ) which should be at least linked
 * Many accusations and the "structural" information reported are taken from the book "La lobbi di Dio" (or articles extracted from it): I think it would be more neutral to put these under "controversies" (and maybe other paragraphs), as using that book as base for the whole article clearly undermines its neutrality.
 * In such book Communion and Liberation is mixed with a number of other realities which are connected to the movement (such as the Company of the Works) but are not the Movement of Communion and Liberation. Making such a wrong mixture on an encyclopaedic page is simply wrong.
 * All further readings provided are critiques to the movement: a citation against "the religious sense" is provided (which I couldn't find on Google) while the book "The Religious Sense" is not cited. Since a bibliography of 1000+ pages of the founder was released (also in English) and there are a number of books about the Movement history and its main faith proposals (such as "The Disarmed Beauty") wrote by both the founder and the current president of Communion and Liberation I believe at least few of these deserve a citation an maybe a few lines.

Finally in the whole page there's hardly anything not negative to be found about Communion and Liberation and very little is said about its actual history and status: this is a clear indication that neutrality was not even remotely considered while writing.

I'd also like to point out that more English citations should be found, as currently only someone fluent in Italian can evaluate the citations provided, which is not correct for wikipedia page, as far as I'm concerned.

I could go on, but I guess you got the gist of it: this page can currently run for the prize as the most biased in the whole wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Some ip user and then just casually throw citation into the article, it also seem cherry picking citation to fit their POV. I should assume good faith on other user but it is fishy that Jasmir54 claimed he joined many year ago, but actually just joined in June 2018 according to meta:Special:CentralAuth/Jasmir54. Things always turn ugly if i collect enough information to start WP:SPI.


 * For the article itself, it seem the article really need experienced Italian speaker to verify the content and its citation. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Matthew_hk! As you might guess this is quite a controversial/hate topic for some people in Italy and thus I'm not too surprised. With time I shall create a proper "Controversies/Accusations" section and add something more about the movement, hopefully without finding myself accused again of vandalism. contribs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.122.40.13 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, in the last message I forgot to log in and properly sign. If I find some citations in English, may I replace the Italian ones? I also believe the section about court sentences should change name to something like "Court sentences involving members" — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I've started to re-edit the controversy section. I also see someone is trying to rewrite the history part, so I'll leave him for that part. Currently I left many original links (out of fear of the bot tagging my work as vandalism), but I honestly don't find it neutral to say "has been accused...the trial was dismissed/there was absolution of the people involved" "The newspaper accused X of Y" and so on so I believe I shall shortly reduce it to a couple paragraphs about the members who were actually convicted and not random accusations by newspapers or accuses which finished with with absolution. GioA90 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your edits but the actual article you wrote is very far from Wikipedia quality standard, please follow the Mos for further information. Thanks! Jasmir54 18:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Jasmir54, as I wrote here what you just reverted to is FAR from wikipedia standard. I am trying to follow the standards of wikipedia as well as possible and I am using proper citations. If you have comments or corrections I am open to discussion, but by erasing everything I've done without proper explanation you're the one being under wiki standards. For instance this citation (https://www.ilgazzettino.it/nordest/padova/comunione_liberazione_padova_condanna_truffa_dieffe-345586.html ) is old and wrong, as the final judgment was full absolution of everyone, as I showed before... Moreover removing the tags for the page POV arbitrarly is also against wiki standardsGioA90 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the reference and reliable citation guides and how to. Use drafts to experiment Jasmir54 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's exactly what I am doing. Trying to use citations in English, for instance. To use official documents etc. Please, could you tell me how my citations are not reliable? "The fraternity is recognized by the Church" and I cite an official document by the Church, how is this not reliable? Also I am using a number of newspapers as you did, like "la repubblica", why are my pages less reliable than the ones you link? I could go on, but you don't seem to be trying to be interested into developing this page as much as you're interested into keeping as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're last changes are not constructive, Jasmir54: either you explain why the sources I used are not reliable or we should revert back and then, of course, if you have some propositions for changes/improvements I am all ears.GioA90 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I also reported you and you can see you've almost broken the "three times rule"; I won't revert the page back, because I hope you'll either start to talk here or someone will revert the page back.GioA90 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi GioA90, you did at least 2 tentative to replace the whole Communion and Liberation article with your very personal peacock version without reliable references and sources besides official Communion and Organization website ones, nothing can be farest from truth! Please read the wikipedia policies about proper and reliable sources and welcome to Wikipedia. Jasmir54 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jasmir54! You're not answering my questions, nor are you answering the points I made in this talk: if you say "Not reliable" you have to say why, especially after the points I made here. Why would the official bibliography of the founder be not reliable for its history? I made a huge number of changes and explained why the current use of citations is under wikipedia, you can't trow them away just because "you know better". Read the first points I made when I opened this talk, and answer. Why is it ok to say "100 billion budget" when in the article this is NOT present? Why is it okay to write a paragraph about "involvement with banks" when the article you're citing says that trial was dismissed and thus the court decided there wasn't material to go on (and, looking around, I can't find it to be reopened)? Why are you using only Italian sources? Why is it okay to cite a non definitive verdict, when the final one was different? Why are you citing the accusations of "God's lobby" as facts, when the book begins with an "avvertenza" stating that the book is talking about trials in progress and thus "all the people involved are to be deemed innocent until final trial" (thus it contains mostly accusations, but you're using it as main source without looking for the final results of trials). I could go on, but as far as I see you are deeming everything that does not accuse communion and liberation as "peacock" without any second thought. I read all those pages on reliability, and they state that "many workers of Italy think that" and other expressions currently present in the article are a sign of the bad quality of the page as it is. So, again, please if you deem the sources I used unreliable explain yourself, as I used many sources and all of them are of some sort of quality of course, I am not saying what I used is all perfect! But please, don't bash everything, say what's good and what not and at least admit the current quality of the article is extremely low. After all you're on wiki from a month or so (even though you say differently, look at the comments of Matthew), thus as far as I see we're both newbies and you shouldn't trow away everything I've done just saying "you made a peacock version. Your sources are unreliable". Especially after the points I made here about how the article is written. I believe your behaviour has been quite unfair so far. So please, I repeat: either motivate, line by line, article by article why what I did is "bad" or restore the old version, as the current one is not even containing the "accuracy", "POV" and "citations" tags which should definitely be there. Best, GioA90 (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, please proper source your references. Thanks you are invited to the Teahouse. Jasmir54 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I asked for help in the Teahouse already. You still are not answering my questions, not even trying...GioA90 (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly? Have a nice day. Jasmir54 06:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Communion_and_Liberation_page, but still you're making an amazing job at ignoring any sort of criticism and bashing everything without taking into consideration what I wrote/the good sources I used (I am sure at least few of them are). Please, try to be collaborative! GioA90 (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a note, also for Lzzy, I think the infobox in "my last version" was more than ok...I don't see the point in removing it altogether, just put non-controversial material in it. GioA90 (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I advice you user GioA90 that a sockupuppeter investigation is now developing. And by the way you have to independent source your text. Jasmir54 03:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The admins will quickly find out I am using no sock puppetts. Jasmir54: there are problems with the current citations. why don't you use this investigation time to read them and try to answer them? Please! No answers are stupid, try to write even if you think is not necessary please, so that I can understand where I am wrong (or, maybe, where there really are some problems).GioA90 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Citations Usage
Because, so far, nothing has happened I'd like this section to help into sorting the citations, in particular those which should be used carefully/are not used properly.


 * Many cited articles are directly dependent on the following. This should be taken into consideration, as at least citations 11,13,14 are really taken from the following:
 * "God's Lobby" by Pinotti: this is investigative journalism. As such it is reliable up to a certain point and it is a book accusing the movement, thus its POV should be kept in mind. In fact it opens with a "warning" stating it is treating about on-going trials and thus, as the Italian law states, "people are to be deemed innocent until the trial is finished". A number of those trials finished (some of them with condemns, as the ones against Formigoni, other not) and thus I believe we should seek for those information and treat carefully information coming from it.

Some of those trials finished:
 * This article "https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07/01/riciclaggio-i-soldi-nelle-casseforti-lussemburghesi-di-intesa-sanpaolo-e-ubi-e-quellinchiesta-archiviata/2874832/" states, the following: accusations about banks were dismissed. The article cites another investigative journalism stating that "cassazione" (the higher court in Italy) might reopen it. I couldn't find anything about this reopening. If so, I believe the paragraph on banks should be removed as all accusations relating to banks have fallen.
 * This article "https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/08/20/comunione-e-liberazione-fatturato-giu-di-2-milioni-ma-quanti-amici-per-il-meeting-dai-signori-del-gioco-dazzardo-alle-banche/1969727/" talks about the money sponsors provided to the Meeting. We could say that "banks sponsored the meeting", but this should be clearly separated from accuses of money laundring. And, again, if the process was not reopened this whole paragraph should really be removed.
 * This "https://www.ilgazzettino.it/nordest/padova/comunione_liberazione_padova_condanna_truffa_dieffe-345586.html" is a local newspaper (thus it is reliable up to a certain point), nevertheless the final verdict was changed: http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Cronaca/2015/1/23/-RAFFAELLI-CASO-DIEFFE-Raffaelli-la-nostra-esperienza-sia-un-segnale-di-speranza/575511/ . This appeared also on the same local newspaper: http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/padova/cronaca/2015/01/23/news/fondi-europei-tutto-regolare-assolti-1.10724606
 * The citation " http://espresso.repubblica.it/palazzo/2011/02/27/news/cl-la-mappa-del-potere-1.28944 " is a show of people "connected" to the movement. As I reported the investigation was archived, moreover "connected" is quite a wide-meaning word. I don't think it is a fit citation for the paragraph and I don't know how it could be used in any sort of paragraph.
 * For the case "mafia capitale", as I've reported, people pleaded guilty. Nevertheless the current citation ( http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2015/06/11/news/julian_carron_un_enorme_delusione_ma_cl_e_agli_antipodi_-116584997/ ) is a letter of the founder which condemns those people for such bad personal decisions. There's no reference to the amount of money. This should also be changed, maybe reporting the final verdict and cite the founder (as I did before)
 * The paragraph "2000s: Italian political election voting trade issue" currently has no citations at all.

I shall add later more comments, but I believe all these problems should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 10:28 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, just proper source the edits, we don't necessarily need walls of text (in my humble opinion). Bye Jasmir54 03:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you tried to be reasonable, we wouldn't need them. Your ability to ignore every criticism is honestly unsettling GioA90 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way I used proper paragraphs, so it is also sort of a stretch to call that a wall of text. There are numerous observations which need to be made about the current state of the page, if you can't read and understand them then I believe you're not fit to help the wiki.GioA90 (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally I know these are straws in the wind, but this whole section of the talk states that the current page needs review because it is not using citations properly and, at least for a part, there are no better citations as the problem is in the wiki page's content!GioA90 (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitive/final Trials
This section is to report final sentences. Please either help this list and/or try avoiding older articles:


 * Padua case, absolution of all people involved: http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/padova/cronaca/2015/01/23/news/fondi-europei-tutto-regolare-assolti-1.10724606 (same newspaper as the one currently used)
 * Meeting of Rimini, absolution of all people involved: http://www.corriereromagna.it/news/home/18393/Meeting--assoluzione-piena-per-tutti.html https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/meeting-rimini-assolto-da-accuse (I couldn't find anything on "la repubblica" which was one of the 'heaviest' accusers; "L'avvenire" is a national catholic journal while the other is a local version of "il corriere", which is the most widespread newspaper in Italy.)
 * Banks: I couldn't find more recent articles. All I can say is that the current citation (https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07/01/riciclaggio-i-soldi-nelle-casseforti-lussemburghesi-di-intesa-sanpaolo-e-ubi-e-quellinchiesta-archiviata/2874832/ ) states "Un’indagine della procura di Milano che è stata archiviata ma potrebbe essere riaperta dalla Cassazione" (that is, the inquiry was archived i.e. there weren't proof to go on with a real trial. It might be reopened from the highest court in Italy). Then it goes on stating that a journalistic inquiry may bring the proofs necessary to reopen the case. I cannot find more recent articles on this thus, as far as I can tell, the case was not reopened and thus the paragraph should be (at least) heavily modified, if not removed altogether.
 * "La cascina" and politics case in Lumbardy: as I already wrote for the case "la cascina" those involved pleaded guilty ( http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/i-manager-de-cascina-chiedono-patteggiamento-1174201.html ) as is trying to do Formigoni and other related politicians ( http://www.milanotoday.it/politica/processo-maugeri-respinto-patteggiamento-formigoni.html and more should be added). In both cases the leader of the movement condemned such wrongdoings stating that people are responsible for what they do and being sad that people following the cl movement could end up doing such things ( http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2015/06/11/news/julian_carron_un_enorme_delusione_ma_cl_e_agli_antipodi_-116584997/ http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2012/05/02/news/carrn_da_chi_ha_sbagliato_un_umiliazione_per_cl-34320186/ ).

If there's more please contribute and compare to what is used in the page.GioA90 (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations

 * I removed the entire subsection "Influential Members". The first three names on the list that I checked (in alphabetical order) was not on the list. Please read the above BLP template and do not add content without references related to the subject(s). Otr500 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the entire section on "Related groups". The section was unsourced and had links to articles, as well as non-linked organizations, that included living people. Please provide references when including BLP related. Otr500 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Jasmir54 05:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please Read Before Editing
This page has been subject to an edit war for a few weeks. Wikipedia guidelines and desire for collaboration should be enough to avoid more wars. Nontheless I'd like to summarize a few points which are obvious, but I believe are important to avoid further "wars".

Let's begin with the obvious: if you find this page polarizing, make extra effort to be collaborative and use properly the talk page!

Trials
Communion and Liberation became quite infamous in Italy during the first years of the 2010s, when a journalistic investigation (the book "la lobby di dio") and several trials began (in particular one against Roberto Formigoni). For this reason there are many articles from 2010-2012 which are extremely critical about it, but the developments of such investigations had often a smaller impact and is less known.

This is a list of trials involving members or connected organizations, you're welcome to update it (and should check it before citing articles, especially if old):

Discharges:


 * Padua case for the irregular use of founds at "diemme", discharge of all people involved: http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/padova/cronaca/2015/01/23/news/fondi-europei-tutto-regolare-assolti-1.10724606 (same newspaper as the one currently used)
 * Meeting of Rimini for irregular use of founds: discharge of all people involved ( http://www.corriereromagna.it/news/home/18393/Meeting--assoluzione-piena-per-tutti.html and https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/meeting-rimini-assolto-da-accuse )

Dismissed Inquiries


 * Banks: this article https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07/01/riciclaggio-i-soldi-nelle-casseforti-lussemburghesi-di-intesa-sanpaolo-e-ubi-e-quellinchiesta-archiviata/2874832/ states "Un’indagine della procura di Milano che è stata archiviata ma potrebbe essere riaperta dalla Cassazione" (that is, the inquiry was dismissed. It might be reopened from the highest court in Italy). Then it goes on stating that a journalistic inquiry may bring the proofs necessary to reopen the case. I cannot find more recent articles on this thus, as far as I can tell, the case was not reopened but if you find something please modify this paragraph.

Condemns:
 * Politics in Lombardy: most people involved pleaded guilty/were condemned (see for instance http://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/06/21/news/roberto_formigoni_condannato_parabola_potere-168683183/, http://www.milanotoday.it/politica/processo-maugeri-respinto-patteggiamento-formigoni.html and a thousand others)
 * "La cascina": those involved pleaded guilty ( http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/i-manager-de-cascina-chiedono-patteggiamento-1174201.html ).

It should be pointed out in both cases the leader of the movement condemned such wrongdoings ( http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2015/06/11/news/julian_carron_un_enorme_delusione_ma_cl_e_agli_antipodi_-116584997/ http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2012/05/02/news/carrn_da_chi_ha_sbagliato_un_umiliazione_per_cl-34320186/ ).

Book "La lobby di dio"
Many articles found are dependent on the following. This is ok, but often this means that in truth only a single source is used.

"God's Lobby" by Pinotti is a book of investigative journalism with a strong negative view towards the Movement: keep in mind its POV when citing it.

Notice the book opens with a "warning" stating it is treating about on-going trials and thus, as the Italian law states, "people are to be deemed innocent until the trial is finished". Many of those trials are cited above, thus definitive sentences should be preferred on accusations.

The book also offers its views on what the Movement is and how it is organized, mixing it with "Compagnia delle Opere" and, together with derived articles ( e.g. http://espresso.repubblica.it/palazzo/2011/02/27/news/cl-tanti-soldi-in-nome-di-dio-1.29108 ) it refers to the Movement as a "sect" or other things. Personally I believe that on the faith side, the opinion of the Catholic Church is more relevant than those of a journalist but I'm open to talk about this.

Moreover, because of the opening of the book, I think citations of this book should be properly cited as accusations as the author is saying (I'm also open to talk about this).

Other Caveats
These are really already inside the wiki guidelines, I report them here as I've seen them completely ignored:


 * (Again, but I believe it's the most important thing:) The subject of this page is polarizing for many, especially in Italy: please make a special effort to be constructive and using the talk page. Just modifying things because you know better and think there's no need to point out why others are wrong, or modifying the whole page without proper explanations is not constructive at all.
 * As the investigations became quite notorious in Italy during the years 2010-2012 many people wrote about it. Many of these articles are of good quality, many more are of very low quality ( such as this, which was actually used: http://www.bastaitalia.org/comunione-e-liberazione-cl-la-vera-mafia-italiana/ as you can see sketchy website, no author, for those speaking Italian you can read a very colloquial Italian mixed with a number of insults ). Try to double check what you are using: this is an encyclopedia!
 * Use citations properly: nobody should need to write this outside the guidelines, but this was also not respected. When you're citing you should report what is inside the source you're using. Throwing random links while making up numbers only damages wikipedia, as it is extremely difficult to check all citations and show what you're citing is, in truth, not there. Similarly "stretching" the meaning of an article is very bad, as it takes even more effort to understand what's wrong and what's not. Take for instance this citation reporting the sponsors of the Meeting: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/08/20/comunione-e-liberazione-fatturato-giu-di-2-milioni-ma-quanti-amici-per-il-meeting-dai-signori-del-gioco-dazzardo-alle-banche/1969727/ . The article is critical about the money's origin and the Meeting altogether and throws several accusations, but this does not mean one can cite it and write "they launder money and bribe people" on wikipedia, as that's not written in the article (and, on this particular example, see also the trial section).
 * If you're going to write something like "many workers of Italy think that" then check the wiki guidelines: you're probably not adding quality material.

I'd like to thank in advance everyone who will help with these guidelines and to point out problems to the page!

Best, GioA90 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
I added "Multiple issues" with "Citations", "cleanup rewrite", and "cite check" article tags as well as "Unsourced section" tags. If any tags are unclear please do not hesitate to inquire as to the reasoning. Otr500 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Citations were fixed on days ago by an editor, thanks. Jasmir54 00:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Throwing bare url of google book without page number is not sufficient. Matthew_hk   t  c  13:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Have a nice day. Jasmir54 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Make sense to an outsider
The article and introduction need to be rewritten in a manner that makes them understandable to outsiders. Too much knowledge (about christianity, the organisation of the church, contemporary theological debates etc) is assumed. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

ok, I never thought about this. Could you please be more specific? Do you think we should add a few lines explaining what a "catholic movement" is and what is meant by "christian event"?GioA90 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Christian event" and "liberation" need to be explained and initialism "GS" needs to be avoided. "lay association of pontifical right" needs to be explained or linked. The sentence "Different forms of consecrated life are also present in the movement: Memores Domini, the Fraternity of St. Joseph, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Charles Borromeo, and the Sisters of Charity of the Assumption." makes no sense to me at all. The section about companies needs to be clear what the relationship is. Are these companies owned by the movement? Owned / run by active participants in the movement? etc.  Those are the obvious things. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you for these questions, I really appreciate!! I shall think about the first words and draft something. As for Memores Domini etc. they are not companies, but religious orders connected to the movement ("religious order" might be not the exact term for all of them. I shall do some research) to various degrees, many of whom do missionary work. I shall look for further details. Thank you again!GioA90 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Trying to making coherence in the article page. Lawtheagoraphobic   (talk)  21:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Any help is welcome! Lawtheagoraphobic  (talk)  15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Disputed tag
The page is back to the biased and inaccurate status of a month ago. Many of the problems I pointed out in the past are still present (see the archive) and the page is inaccurate on an informational level (even the basic stuff, for instance it was not founded in 1969), moreover many things do not have citations at all.

I won't repeat myself and I honestly don't have time to fight against windmills.

This page is useful to show the intrinsic limits of a project like wikipedia. Just, please, leave the disputed tag which deserves to stay there.GioA90 (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you don't like Wikipedia it's your own personal respectable opinion. Lawtheagoraphobic   (talk)  21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, please avoid adding random templates to this article, I can see from your edit history you are a one-mission-user with the only intent to vandalize just this article. Lawtheagoraphobic   (talk)  15:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are the one in a mission user, see the archive: I have been active on this page the last month and had a long fight with another user. But then I don't know why I write this, as you probably are the same user registered with another account.GioA90 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ? Don't be aggressive with other users and maintain a civil tone following Wikipedia Guidelines, please. Lawtheagoraphobic  (talk)  17:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You just accused me of vandalism with no real foundations, my tone was not aggressive. Please read and understand the archive page 2 and make the proper changes or I shall report you to the admins for vandalism.GioA90 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines, you just can't add a disputed template because you don't like a Wikipedia article. Lawtheagoraphobic  (talk)  21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I changed again the intro and put the disputed and citation needed tags. To remove them you need to address things properly in the tag page (or it is against the wiki rules). Moreover, I repeat, read the archive page 2: you'll find described a number of problems with the current status of the page.


 * Finally I warn you: for a number of reasons I suspect you're the same user which was banned, if you don't try to use the talk page properly to address problems I shall report you immediately, as I would happily spend my time improving other pages on wiki if this page wasn't a complete disaster. GioA90 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please stop you unconstructive edit behaviour and follow Wikipedia guidelines and stop the unconstructive nonsense speech. Lawtheagoraphobic   (talk)  21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For talk page watchers trying to follow the status of this article, you should be aware that User:Lawtheagoraphobic's proposal about it at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard just got rejected as a conduct dispute. The other news is that User:Jasmir54 who used to be very active here was blocked indef on 30 July as a sock. It is still my hope that the editors here will find a way to get WP:Dispute resolution going. For example, they could open an WP:RFC. Two experienced editors have recently posted on Talk, User:Matthew hk and User:Stuartyeates. and maybe one or more of them would like to add comments here about the current situation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The page as it stands right now is verging on WP:TNT. There are serious issues with pretty much the entire content which don't seem to be getting better. I've not inspected the article history to see which editors might be more or less to blame, but something needs to change. I'm handicapped by (a) not reading Italian (and lets face it, most of the sources are in Italian) and (b) not being familiar with the English-language terminology of the Catholic Church; so my input so far has largely been to correct the most obviously bad translations and cut the worst bits out. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In the past I've asked for request for comment. The problem is that the argument is quite a niche outside Italy and, as Stuartyeates pointed out, most sources are in Italian and need some understanding of the Catholic Church terminology, which cuts off most people. I am not inclined to believe this will solve because (I tried to signal this to the admins) I believe Lawtheagoraphobic is really Jasmir54 who, for two months now, has ignored all sort of criticisms even the most blatant ones (as citing the non-definitive sentence instead of the final acquittal of all charges and removing the official bibliography of the founder because he thinks "it is not reliable", without stating why, while taking everything from a book which contains accusations as 100% true, while even the book begins with a 'warning' about this). In the archive page 2 I made a number of arguments which apply to the current page: I'm sure it's not perfect, but I believe many points I make are quite compelling and Lawtheagoraphobic is just bashing everything as "unreliable/vandalism/etc." without adding any sensible reason. The material Lawtheagoraphobic is adding is really the one from Jasmir54, so we have same material, same comments, same problems.
 * I am more than willing to cooperate with anyone, even help them finding sources in English/translating, either to restart the page from blank or to work from the current status...but for this I need people who try to understand and not just yell "vandalism" as Lawtheagoraphobic and Jasmir54 did/do.147.122.40.13 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to log in. The last message was mine.GioA90 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As an example: I just counted 8 articles or book citations in the current page, which all are really articles about the book "La lobby di Dio", that is one fifth of the references are really references to the same book. The book is very critical about Communion and Liberation: I have no problem with this. But the book starts with an "Avvertenza" (warning) that the trials its talking about are not concluded, and what really matters is the final verdict. Similarly as a critical source, I wouldn't use it as the main and only one. I could go on, but honestly with Jasmir54 I grew tired of trying to explain myself: it really felt (and feels) like time utterly wasted.GioA90 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the current version
There is a huge number of problems with the current page. I'll try to improve the archive 2 version in the hope that other users will read:
 * many values have no citations (100 billion)
 * there's no effort to talk about what the movement does (what's school of community? What's memores domini?) or, when this is done, citations are missing and the tone is derogatory at best "Participation in the Communion and Liberation movement can involve a relatively low degree of commitment, such as attending a weekly catechesis". Who says that?
 * the page is clearly edited badly, as there are inconsistencies even with the foundation date (1969 or 1954) and, even for historical facts, a book containing accusation is cited instead of a bibliography/historic book on the movement
 * Citations are still misused: random links have been thrown again.
 * accusations are posted as fact (de facto etc.): Company of the Works is something separated from Communion and Liberation, for instance. There are connections and related accusation, but mixing everything just gives bad results as a wiki page

Trials
Discharges:
 * Padua case for the irregular use of founds at "diemme", discharge of all people involved: http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/padova/cronaca/2015/01/23/news/fondi-europei-tutto-regolare-assolti-1.10724606 (same newspaper as the one currently used), please avoid using the non-definitive sentence
 * Meeting of Rimini for irregular use of founds: discharge of all people involved ( http://www.corriereromagna.it/news/home/18393/Meeting--assoluzione-piena-per-tutti.html and https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/meeting-rimini-assolto-da-accuse )

Dismissed Inquiries


 * Banks: this article https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07/01/riciclaggio-i-soldi-nelle-casseforti-lussemburghesi-di-intesa-sanpaolo-e-ubi-e-quellinchiesta-archiviata/2874832/ states "Un’indagine della procura di Milano che è stata archiviata ma potrebbe essere riaperta dalla Cassazione" (that is, the inquiry was dismissed. It might be reopened from the highest court in Italy). Then it goes on stating that a journalistic inquiry may bring the proofs necessary to reopen the case. As far as I can say the trial was not reopened, thus either we avoid writing about it altogether, or say the newspaper accused it but no trial was opened. Currently it is reported to state as a fact money laundering.

Condemns (also here I would only cite final trials, no need for 10 articles about every minor step):
 * Politics in Lombardy: most people involved pleaded guilty/were condemned (see for instance http://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/06/21/news/roberto_formigoni_condannato_parabola_potere-168683183/, http://www.milanotoday.it/politica/processo-maugeri-respinto-patteggiamento-formigoni.html and a thousand others)
 * "La cascina": those involved pleaded guilty ( http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/i-manager-de-cascina-chiedono-patteggiamento-1174201.html ).

It should be pointed out in both cases the leader of the movement condemned such wrongdoings sending letters to national newspapers (as here http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2015/06/11/news/julian_carron_un_enorme_delusione_ma_cl_e_agli_antipodi_-116584997/ http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2012/05/02/news/carrn_da_chi_ha_sbagliato_un_umiliazione_per_cl-34320186/ ), while currently these letters are used as "citations" for "de facto" accusations.

Book "La lobby di dio"
"God's Lobby" by Pinotti is a book of investigative journalism with a strong negative view towards the Movement: keep in mind its POV when citing it.

Notice the book opens with a "warning" stating it is treating about on-going trials and thus, as the Italian law states, "people are to be deemed innocent until the trial is finished". Many of those trials are cited above, thus definitive sentences should be preferred on accusations.

The book also offers its views on what the Movement is and how it is organized, mixing it with "Compagnia delle Opere" and, together with derived articles ( e.g. http://espresso.repubblica.it/palazzo/2011/02/27/news/cl-tanti-soldi-in-nome-di-dio-1.29108 ) it refers to the Movement as a "sect" or other things. Since the Catholic Church does not define it as "sect", I believe on faith matters this second opinion is more relevant than the accusations of a journalist. For this reason I would avoid it as a reference for historical facts about the movement (foundation date etc.)GioA90 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Stepwise revisions
Thanks to everyone who has commented above. It seems to be accepted that some rewriting is needed. Can I suggest beginning with this passage from the lead paragraph: "...and is considered a de facto advocacy group with free or low commitment participation requirements that generated Conflicts of Interest in private and public companies in Italy since the 1970s." .

I am still acting as an administrator, so I don't wish to be the decider on content questions. But from the above remarks, I see that User:GioA90 has some ideas for changing this. He was not convinced about the 'free or low commitment participation requirements'. The sentence also mixes in something about conflict of interest that might not need to be stated right at the beginning, before much background is given. Does anyone want to propose a revision of this sentence? EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (a) If we're claiming it's an advocacy group, we need to be clear what it's advocating (which isn't clear to me). (b) I would move these kinds of alegations out of the article lead as is standard wikipedia style. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * When I read the quote I wonder: is considered...by who? These are the accusations contained in the cited book. As some trials verdicts show, some members really exchanged favours and did questionable things (to obtain personal power/money). But all these mis-behaviours were always condemned without reserves from the president of the movement, even with letters to national newspapers (some of them are cited in the article). For this reason I believe these are accusations and should be put in a separate section where all criticisms: from Pinotti's accusations, to the various trials, to the founder position are brought in a attempt of being fair.
 * As for the participation it is free (in an old version there was also a reference for this) and there's no "required" commitment, but I don't see the relevance of this in the first introductory paragraph (and I'd like to find references to what I just wrote). Founder, date of foundation, purpose: these to me seem more important
 * "Communion and Liberation (Italian: Comunione e Liberazione, often shortened to CL) is an Italian ecclesial movement of the Roman Catholic Church founded in 1954 by Fr. Luigi Giussani. Its aim is to show how faith can be relevant to life’s needs, even in the modern secularized world."


 * As a source for this introduction I would use the founder's official bibliography. It has been removed several times, bashed as garbage by Jasmir54 before, and now the new user. In Italy the book has been published by "Rizzoli" (which is a well-known, well-established publisher and among the biggest ones in Italy) and has been translated in English (and I guess also Spanish), so I personally believe it's a good choice for these historical/generic facts.GioA90 (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So, what do you think User:Lawtheagoraphobic? We're waiting for your constructive contribution on this.GioA90 (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC


 * I'm assuming your aware that founders official biography is a primary source and that we're meant to be working from secondary sources? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, after reading it I always assumed it was good quality. I thought a bit about it and looked it up: the word "official" does not appear anywhere and it was written by a professional journalist who did extensive research and clearly had access to a lot of official sources. Though, google tells me, the journalist is quite involved with cl (communion and liberation is too long, sorry). I am now a bit troubled as to which sources to use. The definition of primary source on wiki talks about "artifact created at the time under study". The bibliography was written after the founder's death and is published by a respectable publisher, but by a journalist who is involved with the subject. The book "La lobby di dio" was published by an independent publisher and was written while everything was happening (in fact he warns about ongoing trials) by a journalist who specializes in books against the catholic faith (so he at least has a strong point of view). How to weight them as for reliability? I wouldn't say either of them is completely unreliable! Still I think, at least for "generical historical facts" (as the foundation date), the bibliography is a better one. And, to be honest, I never read the whole "Lobby di Dio", but in the parts I read there wasn't much "history". Do you think it would it be better to cite, say, "enciclopedia treccani" (it is probably the most respected and well-established encyclopedias in Italian), even though it is a tertiary source? I also wanted to thank EdJohnston for the patience of coming here and opening this section in a very concrete attempt to solve this (two-months-old) dispute.GioA90 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "enciclopedia treccani" is a fine source, by the sounds of it. There will be other sources, it's just a question of finding them. Since many of these scandals involve businesses, maybe we could try business newspapers with decent coverage of Italy (think Financial Times, maybe?). There are also sources in English such as https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/conservative-catholic-group-gripped-scandal (which certainly looks like a reliable source in this context). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A scholar from an independent institution or a journalist who has written about a variety of topics might be good sources, if they exist. Be aware that Google search does bring up some examples of people writing in English about Communion and Liberation. User:Stuartyeates already presented one of them above. There is also a 2013 article about the new pope's relations with Communion and Liberation. Both of these articles appeared in the National Catholic Reporter. We'd expect that this journal might be sympathetic to Catholicism but at least would be at some distance from Italian disputes. (In fact the NCR is independent of the church, has a lay board of directors, and has been referred to as 'progressive'). There may also be scholars from third countries (Europe, for example) who have written about Italian politics. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See also a 1999 book called The Pope's Armada: Unlocking the Secrets of Mysterious and Powerful New Sects in the Church by Gordon Urquhart. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

, Il Sole 24 Ore is the Italian business newspaper which was owned by Confindustria, which may have covered on CL as well as not directly related to any religious association. (However, tie to businesses) Due to my limited understanding to Italian language, i can't help much on this article. Matthew_hk  t  c  04:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't read it, but the writer of the "Popes Armada", Gordon Urquhart, was involved for many years in the Focolare Movement and finally left it (see for instance his blog post https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/2404400-my-mother-s-passing ); as such I wouldn't define it as "detached" or "neutral" on the subject, nor is he a professional journalist or writer (as far as I can say). As for the bibliography it ends with more than 100 pages of references to documents (you can partially see this also here: https://books.google.it/books?id=NDxCDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+life+of+giussani&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7xIO73ofdAhWGiCwKHfHXDokQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=the%20life%20of%20giussani&f=false ), so personally I would define it as "secondary, but probably biased" (and, having read it, I can confirm not many "negative things" are reported. But, for the list of documents, I believe that at least for dates and main historical facts is the way to go). Similarly for the book "la lobby di Dio" (I got it now), but in this case there are some books used as references and about 55 interviews (thus a different degree of reliability). I personally believe avoiding mainstream Italian media with the fear of it "being controlled" is borderline conspiracy theory; for example finding the results of trials involving members is not difficult on the "sole 24 ore" (e.g. http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2016-12-22/caso-maugeri-e-san-raffaele-formigoni-condannato-6-anni-120647.shtml?uuid=ADxQqkIC ). I also recall some trials being reported to English newspapers (it's only a matter of finding them). I shall look for scholars from other countries, but my impression is that as soon as we step outside things which are of interest to the media (i.e. politics, crime...) it is difficult to find sources which are not official documents (either from the vatican or the movement) or books somehow "connected" to the movement. As for the introduction, I am proposing the following:


 * "Communion and Liberation (Italian: Comunione e Liberazione, often shortened to CL) is an Italian Catholic movements founded in 1954 by Fr. Luigi Giussani in the Milan area. It began as a branch of the Catholic Action by the name of "Gioventù Studentesca" (Student Youth), and after the Protests of 1968, it reorganized as Communion and Liberation in 1969 and is now present in more than 70 countries. It is characterized by the message that faith is fundamental to every aspect of one's life . Membership is estimated to be over 300,000, comprised mainly of lay people."


 * "Its ideals lead to a engagement in social causes, from the creation of private schools and a number of charitable projects, such as the italian Banco Alimentare, to an involvement in politics through the Italian People's Movement Party and affiliated members. The group has been accused of causing conflicts of interest and lobbying, while a number of notable members and connected cooperatives have been sentenced for crimes of corruption, bribery and fraud. The current president of the movement, Fr. Julián Carrón, answered scandals with open letters in 2012 and 2015 published in the national newspaper La Repubblica , condemning such behaviours as against Giussani's teachings while confessing the group’s "great humiliation"."


 * The first paragraph is really an elaboration from the treccani ( http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/comunione-e-liberazione/ ), where I cut some things and added precise dates and the number of countries in which is present (taken from the bibliography and "la lobby di Dio") and a small addition from the current second one. The second paragraph is an elaboration the current one, removing misused citations and adding useful ones, while trying to balance accusations, sentences and the official statements from the group. What do you think? Please, User:Lawtheagoraphobic, let your voice be heard! Also, please, cite more carefully! Not only the article is full of non-related citations but those which are correct are not used properly. For instance, the "Lobby di dio" book is from 2011 and reads "more than 300,000 members" (total in 70 countries) at page 6, while you currently used it to support the sentence "as of 2018, there are about 300,000 members in Italy." This is no good for an encyclopedia! GioA90 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the best yet, GioA90. Do you mind if myself or other editors tweak it for English usage? Stuartyeates (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please, Stuartyeates, I can see my English needs some tweaking! I'm more than happy if anyone helps with that :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , for the source, i think identifying the source is reliable is fair enough, too much analysis on the background of the author would violate WP:original research, It is the limitation of wikipedia which only acted as a summary of external source, which if the mainstream media presented that point of view, all we could do was adding the response and or other point of view from also the reliable source, which sometimes not existed. For example i always want to improve the conspiracy theory on Ping An Insurance or Li Peng controlling the mega company State Power Corporation, but lack of reliable source to dig out to rebut the seem exaggerated crony capitalism. Matthew_hk   t  c  06:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explanation :) As for my proposal for the introduction how should we proceed? Should I edit the main page and then other editors shall it? I am quite worried that User:Lawtheagoraphobic did not interact at all in this talk; it really reminds me of Jasmir54 who ignored every attempt of collaboration and then bashed everything as "vandalism"...GioA90 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone over it a couple of times and am happy with the English. Looks good to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok! Well, anyway language can be perfected later if someone finds something weird!GioA90 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I just changed the page: I did some final touches (capitalization and added an "n" after an "a" followed by vowel). Doing so I removed some random citations and one which was used also in another place, but since the final sentence for that case was discharge for everyone (here http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/padova/cronaca/2015/01/23/news/fondi-europei-tutto-regolare-assolti-1.10724606 from the same newspaper as the one cited) I don't think it should be used.GioA90 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe the next big thing is the infobox, I personally find there are these problems with it:
 * The services section is a bit extreme I would remove it and put these under an accusations/controversies section. But, even if we want to keep it that way, the three citations currently used are really just there to link something.
 * The number of members as "over 300,000" is found in both references: I don't see why that 800,000
 * I wuldn't define Company of the works as parent organization. Maybe "related organization"?
 * 100 million...where does this value come from? I would remove it altogether.

Finally "Key people": currently this section is more similar to a mix of random "important" people than to the list of Key People I would put:
 * The first two people are important for the Company of the Works, so I wouldn't put them here but in the other page (gosh, that also uses a single citation...). In fact in the citations the word "comunione" does not appear...
 * The citations used for Buttiglione really talk about how he was in the movement and in 1992 "divorced" accusing it of transforming from a religious movement to a political one and I can't find much else about him and the movement. Do we really need him here?
 * "Marcello Pera" is the "proof of quality" for this article: he's there with a cited article. In the article I read "Pera e l’immigrazione, Cl prende le distanze" (Pera and immigration, Cl distances itself ) "Pera non viene dall’esperienza di Cl." (Pera does not come from Cl's experience.) "la differenza sta nella fede e Pera non è credente" (The difference is faith and Pera is not a believer). This guy ended up here only because he was invited and came to the "Meeting di Rimini" (as a number of different people from all the world) and there he expressed opinions which are in contrast with the "main Catholic" views!
 * Formigoni and Lupi: the Movement (as far as I can see) never had an official political spokeperson. Maybe we could add them as "former unofficial political spokeperson" as they are relatively well known members of the movement. But notice one of the cited articles about them reads (https://www.ilfoglio.it/granmilano/2018/01/21/news/comunione-e-liberazione-piccola-mappa-della-diaspora-del-fu-potere-celeste-173678/): nessuno dei “ragazzi” cresciuti alla scuola di don Giussani riceverà l’imprimatur, o un mandato, o un endorsement da don Julián Carrón, l’attuale guida del movimento ecclesiale, per le individuali scelte di schieramento politico che verranno fatte. (no one of the "boys" grown up in Fr. Giussani's school shall receive the "imprimatur", or a mandate, or an endorsement from don Julián Carrón, the current guide to the ecclesial movement, for the personal choices of party). Another cited article talks about the distance from Formigoni and the movement. The last cited article titles "...without Formigoni and Lupi..." and then talks about the Rimini Meeting...so I wouldn't put them as "political spokeperson"...

What do you think?GioA90 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it is clear that Pera really is not a member of Communion and Liberation, and the value 800,000 is nowhere to be found (actually the article citation for 300,000 talks of "Si parla circa di 300 mila simpatizzanti" (It's said around 300,000 sympathizers; that is members plus people who "like" or partly "support" it), I took the liberty of removing them already.GioA90 (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Now it's better =) Lawtheagoraphobic   (talk)  11:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Too much about religion
Hi, I think the actual version revolves too much about religion and it almost completely ignore the pressure group part described in many books and articles, I'm putting a template in the current article, any help to write a better version is welcomed. Kitcatx  (talk)  15:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the reason it's "too much about religion" is that it is a religious association. The books you are citing are books on speculative conspiracies against Communion and Liberation. Stop writing controversies as fact in the page. If you wish to add more about controversies, please add them in the designated "Controversies" section and link to reputable sources--opinions pieces, blog entries, and speculative writing are not reputable sources. Lzzy303 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Lzzy303 (talk)

Merging of the two versions
Hi, I think the two versions of the article both speak about the subject describing it with many sources, so I have merged them so we won't miss any detail. Kitcatx  (talk)  14:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what you are describing as detail that shouldn't be missed is actually unconfirmed criticism against Communion and Liberation. Stop including that as fact throughout the whole article. If you wish to write more on criticism, please add that in the designated section and link to reputable sources. Lzzy303 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Lzzy303 (talk)

RfC about the the actual content of the article
Should the current article (that it's a lot focused about the religion) talk more about the advocacy group aspects and the scandals that Communion and Liberation generated in the last years? Thanks Kitcatx   (talk)  17:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, this yes/no question is too difficult for RFC. I would rather say, how many reliable source are there ? Matthew hk (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the criticism section can be detailed further but I believe this is much better than what you are copy/pasting, especially for the historical part, as you many of the citations are more concerned with scandals of today, than detailing a history. Moreover, the old version you paste has a number of huge problems with citations, dear . I had detailed these problems before but you completely ignored everything I said (to be precise, that old version was copy-pasted from a banned user which, I suspect, was you ). Just as an example, you cite a book which was written in 2010 and other articles: now some trials ended, some with condemns, others with a full clearance of charges, but you ignore this second case, and even ignore the book you are citing (as, in the first page, it clearly states that it is about ongoing trials etc.): you can not copy-paste them as a fact on an encyclopedia. To conclude, I gave up trying to contribute on Wikipedia in general because of you, Kitcatx, as you never tried to really answer, just copy-pasted and ignored any reasonable criticism: even writing this message feels like wasted time, and I fear similar edit-wars in other fields (where I really have some expertise). I write this in the hope you will understand that "merge" does not mean "I copy my old stuff over yours, leaving some small paragraphs around", citation does not mean "something with CL written in it", and that your behavior for the last two years has remained as toxic and uncollaborative as ever (as far as I can see from the recent history of these pages). GioA90 (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * it is the same person that you had encountered. He was blocked for socking but not banned. And then he had received a standard offer to unblock. And then he renamed the account. If he still doing the same behaviour that the citation is not supporting the content, I endorsed to seek dispute resolution or just straight to ANI for pov pushing and WP:NOTHERE. But sorry I can't read Italian source and Google translate only help me to read Italian football article but not those heavy stuff. So I can't really state the citation are supporting the wiki content or not. Matthew hk (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * if you look at the page as I first found it, he never really changed any citation (and clearly automatic translation is not enough, at least for now, so don't worry and thank you for the message). I think this is sad, as Wiki should be about collaboration, not who "wins"...but as long as he ignores or just bashes anyone not agreeing with him this is not possible :( GioA90 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Book section
can you explain the edit summary "those ARE sources! They are CITATIONS!”? At the very least we would actually have to site the book as proof of its own existence, we would still have a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue though, without independent coverage linking them to the topic at hand there isn’t really any way to include them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh? Where does it say that in our policies and guidelines? Elizium23 (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Due weight is part of the NPOV policy. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)