This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Italy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Dthomsen8, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 24 September 2013. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

This article has been blanked due to copyright issues raised on the Italian Wikipedia, where it was originally posted. The article there was deleted as an infringement of a 1996 book, Se il mondo non finisce. Quando la profezia non si avvera Psichiatria e Territorio, by Mario Di Fiorino. This article, I'm advised, contains substantial material that is a direct translation of that Italian article. In this edit, the creator of the article indicates it is not copied from the book, but rather borrows heavily from a later publication by the author and that he would seek permission. If usable license is generated for that, then it should suffice here.

However, this does not address other concerns. The article may still be deleted via PROD or AFD if it is not retainable for other reasons. If it is deleted via PROD and challenged, that challenge does not in itself resolve the copyright concerns. The two are unrelated.

The contents are still visible in history, so they can be assessed on their own merit.

If the article is not deleted for other reasons, the copyright should be resolvable by checking it:Il Gruppo del Rosario di Amantea and the contributions of the contributor to see what happened in Italy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch with the copyvio.

Even if a licence is granted and an OTRS ticket number arrives, the article remains an impenetrable mess. If this cult is notable then the article needs to reflect that. At present it is a bad narrative about some events in which the cult made a total fool of itself. A copyright licence does not remove the POV pushing, the OR and the SYNTH. Fiddle Faddle 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable subject, involving a lurid murder, which received wide coverage in the Italian press, e.g. [1], [2], [3], and also in the US [4]. It is written about in this book. Also this one. However, this article would need a complete re-write from top to bottom. The current article is complete, unencyclopedic gibberish. Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a notable subject, perhaps interesting in a lurid way, the article is very badly done and a copyright problem too, and no amount of copyediting by GOCE members could change that status. Did this murder receive coverage in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 September 2013‎

Yes, it did see my 4th link above and this. The story was syndicated by Associated Press [5]. Having said that, I completely agree that no amount of copyediting will fix the current article. I'm going write a brief, factual, referenced stub at Talk:Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group”/Temp and this version can (and should be) deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What (in the rules etc) prevents you from doing that to replace the article as it stands? I have no practical objection to that concept. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, deep in the copyvio template. What a complex process. Do that thing, then, with the temp page. Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. What will happen if the PROD takes effect -- will the subpage be lost? By the way, the current article title is certainly wrong (plain dquote before Rosary, decorative dquote at the end). Would the right tile be simply Rosary Prayer Group ? --Stfg (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No policy requires us to retain content that is unencyclopedic while we wait for permission. If permission arrives, then I'll restore the history and you have the option of incorporating some of the older text. If it doesn't, we have a usable stub in the meantime. :) That you, User:Voceditenore! Fiddle Faddle, this is an unusual situation - the article you actually prodded is now gone, but may be restored in history if permission arrives. This one is an entirely different animal. Do you want me to label it as a challenged PROD, or let that go since the old article is currently gone? Since you were the PRODder, I think that should be your call. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use simple logic. The PROD referred to the copyvio item. It has thus been handled, albeit in an unusual manner. It may be removed the moment the currently blanked article is replaced with new words because the new words will not have the same issues that the old words had. If you (or anyone) prefer(s) then it may be removed at once on the basis that the original words are now gone. I am wholly content with either approach. Let;s not get tied up in string :) If approval arrives for the original article, though, and it is reinstated, heck, my concerns are reinstated! Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. :) If that happens, I'll put the notice of the old prod on the talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish all difficult situations on Wikipedia were handled the way this one has been. Super work by everyone on this thread and by users Dthomsen8 and Justlettersandnumbers. --Stfg (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely closely paraphrased and in places copied verbatim from two articles in English:

• Di Fiorino, M.; Del Debbio, A.; Pannocchia, L. (2008). "The Prophecy and the Murder in the Italian Apocalyptic Cult 'Rosary Prayer Group'". Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 35-45.
• Di Fiorino, M.; Del Debbio, A.; Pannocchia, L. (2008). "The Reactions to the Failure of the Prophecy in the Italian Apocalyptic Cult 'Rosary Prayer Group'". Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 46-52.

I've cross-checked both articles and the edit history of this English WP article. The copyvio is foundational. It's not surprising that this article reads like original research and synthesis. It's copied from the published work of the three academics listed above. Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've moved this page from its previous title (Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group”). Not only did it violate WP:MOS on multiple levels, but Gruppo del Rosario is the name used in the majority of sources, including Di Fiorino's original 1996 monograph Se il mondo non finisce. Quando la profezia non si avvera, and the cult never operated outside Italy. I am reluctant to title it "Rosary Prayer Group" (even with a qualifier). That term is used widely in English by mainstream Catholics to describe parish groups which meet regularly simply to recite the Rosary (see [6]). Any other suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the name is good, as is the short article, as is all the work that has been done here. Congratulations all round, I think, nice going! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, good choice of name. Well spotted about the more normal use of the English term. --Stfg (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]