Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Third opinion

Hello. I see that you would both like some help to resolve some issues about this article. I will try to help, if you like. Before I start to read all the information on this talkpage, can both of you give me a very short summary (5 lines maximum) about what you think the issues are, so that I know where to focus. --Slp1 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, Red Rose 13 tried to "balance" the article as it was way too negative of apparitions, in their perception (I guess). So, they asked me to discuss my insertions on the talk page before editing the article. Which was ok. I agreed. Then, all of the sudden, they rearranged the entire page, deleted several sections, and added few new ones - all of that without any discussion. The sources they used, in my opinion, are highly unreliable. One cannot add biased sources just to "balance the article". It's like adding Holocaust-denying authors to the article on Holocaust just to "balance" the article because the article is very anti-Nazi. The other issues are the structure of the article and apparently my misuse of Croatian sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for joining us. I am so grateful. The issues I have noticed and addressed on the talk page. Sorry it is a little long but there are many issues:
•Translation issues brought up by me and editor Sundayclose here [1] & here [2]
•So far I have only studied one of Govenor Sheng's Croatian sources,"Ogledalo Pravde" by Dražen Kutleša but what I found concerns me. First of all it is just a pdf of a book.[3] It is filled with opinions, pettiness, bias, gossip and assumptions. One example: Some unknown German person brought a list to Bishop Ratzinger of statements unknown to us from the author Sister Emmanuel from John Paul II. When asked if this unknown list of quotes was true, Ratzinger wrote, "I can only say that the statements about Medjugorje were attributed The Holy Father and I are mere fabrications”. (Emmanuel never mentioned Ratzinger in her book except when he sent Zanic away from Medjugorje and took the investigation from him) Sheng assumes and seems to think he knows what is on that list and uses this reference to discredit Sister Emmanuel's books.
•Using old information as if it was current in regards to the current view of the church re Medjugorje
•Too much excessive detail on other issues that need to be removed as pointed out by Elizium here [4]. And some things only need a sentence or two not paragraphs
•When I started actively editing on this page in October, the page needed a logical structure and a basic explanation of what the page is all about. The changes that Governor Sheng refers is to taking out excess as suggested by Elizium and bringing order to the page by organizing. Governor Sheng seems to be focused on controversies only.
•Needs a concise evolution from the beginning of the apparitions to present day.
There is more but this is a beginning. Thank you for listening.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I will be reading this page shortly with your thoughts in mind and will get back to you with my comments and suggestions for how to proceed. Please note that we are all working for the best possible information for our readers: it really is not helpful to talk about each other in a negative way. Everybody is doing their best. Let's keep the comments on how we can improve the article rather what what such and such did. Slp1 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. So I have read the most recent archive pages, this page and the article. I know virtually nothing about this topic. I see that you both have lots of energy and passion and dedication to getting this article up to snuff. Well done.

The bad news: As you both know the article is in terrible shape. It is very hard to follow what it is all about: the flow seems to go back and forth in time, some things are mentioned twice, some topics are included which seem to have nothing Medjugorje, and, as another editor mentions above, there are several he said/she said type sections. I have worked on improving articles with similar problems in the past, so will do what I can to guide you here.

The good news: You have already identified some of the key issues: the lack of an agreed structure to the article, and questions about the sources being used. From my experience, the structure to the article will become clear once you read and inwardly digest the best, highest quality sources on the topic. As you know per WP:RS. "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."; "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." There are lots of scholarly sources available for this topic that could and should be summarized for this encyclopedia article.

So here is my first challenge to you: can you suggest two recent, scholarly, reliable, independent published sources for use in this article? Let's agree on those first. Two additional points as you think about this: (a) this is a controversial topic which attracts authors with strong opinions/faith one way or another. In this context, and especially when it comes to structuring the article, it is important to use independent/third party sources that are not trying to promote particular point of view about the topic. (b) In addition, although independent reliable sources in Croatian can be used, it would be preferable that they are in English, especially for this first stage.

I will get you started by suggesting a scholarly book, published by a University Press to boot.

• Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Daniel Maria Klimek, Oxford University Press, 2018 [5]

What are your suggestions? I look forward to hearing from you. Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea but how do we obtain a copy to read? On amazon the cost is $100+ and kindle is 91.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There’s quite a lot on free preview on Googlebooks, and then there is the library of course. But that will be the next step. What are your suggestions of scholarly, independent sources on this topic? Slp1 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I own the book. It can be used to give an account to what happened at the beginning of the alleged apparitions, however, the rest of the books mostly discusses the rationalisation of spiritual phenomenons. --Governor Sheng (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That's great that you have it! I agree that the first few chapters will likely be the most useful, in part as a source but also by helping us figure out how to present the story. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Here is one possibility but I will keep looking - Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje (Princeton Legacy Library, 1149) [6]Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

And here is another one. [7] The Oxford Encyclopedia of Religion in America

Both of these sources are great examples of reliable sources. Thank you. However, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje gets very good reviews but it is now almost 30 years old, so quite dated. We could use, but obviously with caution I don't have access to the article in Oxford Encyclopedia of Religion in America, but I imagine from the title that it will only be telling part of the story (ie focussed on American pilgrims?) so will have to be used with some care too.--Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll give my opinion later during the day. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As for now, what do you think about these books:

• [8]
• [9]

--Governor Sheng (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Our Lady of the Nations: Apparitions of Mary in 20th-Century Catholic Europe (2016) OUP is a high quality, recent reliable source. It is an excellent source for the article. Thank you very much!

Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud? (2011) seems to be self-published. The author, Donal Anthony Foley, appears to manage Theotokos Books which published the book [10][11][12]. As far as I can see, he is not " an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:RSSELF As such, the book is not a reliable source, unfortunately. As an addendum, he also seems clearly allied with a particular camp... not really independent/third party in an article where this is particularly important.

I look forward to seeing your other responses. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I'll start working on the history section from Klimek's and Maunder's book. For now, I want to ask, what to do with Sister Emmanuel Maillard's book and Dražen Kutleša's book? Kutleša gives a good account of events. He's rather an editor than an author of the book who complied with interviews and statements and added few comments on his own. I still think we can rely on accounts given in the book. Such accounts are repeated by others as well. However, I find a problem with Maillard's book, for example with the account of Sister Lucia having a vision of Our Lady of Medjugorje. An extraordinary claim impossible to be found anywhere else, which is surprising. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for your answer and your questions. I will try and look into those books you mention and will tell you what I think about them as sources. But for now I suggest you don't do any editing. I think it will be best if we agree on the plan for the structure of the article first. And the first step for that is gathering and agreeing on the highest quality sources available. If you have any more suggestions of good, reliable independent secondary sources, either of you, please bring them forward so that we can agree on them!! I am sure that there are more than this! --Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Sorry. I'll stop editing. I wasn't aware of your message. Ok. While I'll wait for your assessment of these two books, I'll propose my structure for the article: 1) Background – here we should discuss how there was a dispute between the Franciscans and the diocesan clergy (Herzegovina Affair. This is an important event to which Maunder also paid attention in his book "Our Lady of Nations", but not just him. Also, it should be mentioned that there was a global anti-communist movement, to which the phenomenon of Medjugorje can be ascribed as well as the involvement of the Catholic Charismatic Movement. 2) History – a short chronology of the apparitions. In this section, the first apparitions should be discussed, as well as the spiritual guidance of the seers by Tomislav Vlašić and Slavko Barbarić (an important event in the development of this cult), the stance of the communist authorities and the local diocese during Bishop Pavao Žanić's reign. 3) The first three investigations – here we should discuss the formation and activity of the first two investigative commissions formed by the bishop as well as their results. The third commision and the Yugoslav bishops' declaration of 1991 4) The fourth (Ruini) commission and its results and implications. 5) Official position of the church - includes the position of the local diocese, the 1991 declaration, and the stance of Rome. 6) The global spread of the popularity of Medjugorje; the persons who influenced it and so on; 6) Controversies. 7) Bios. 8) Political and economic aspects.

Just a note,, Foley has apparently written for Catholic Herald (UK)[13], the The Wanderer, and the Homiletic and Pastoral Review; [14] and been published by Gracewing and CTS, most of which, I suspect have a similar editorial perspective. He definitely has decided views but, it seems, is recognized by certain somewhat right-of-center Catholics as a respected writer. Nonetheless, I would use him but sparingly, if at all. Manannan67 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, let's wait for discussing the structure until we have figured out reliable sources. But those ideas are good for the record. As for the proposed references:

• Medjugorje: Triumph of the Heart (revised) (1997) is published by Queenship Publishing Co - which according to the archives of the WP:RSN is reputable publishing house.[15] However, the author (and the publishing house) is clearly partisan, and very close to the topic she is writing about. It is also more than 20 years old. As such, the book can be used with some caution, not for anything controversial and with attribution : "According to Maillard......"
• Ogledalo Pravde (2001) is published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar, which from googletranslate is the Mostar Diocese/Bishopric (?). If that is the case then it is almost certainly not a "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as needed by the guideline. But I don't entirely understand the context that this document was published, so you could give some more details to help me understand, or you could check at the WP:RSN. However, in addition you describe this book as a compilation of "interviews and statements and added few comments on his own". That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS. Wikipedia requires us to be extremely careful which primary sources. Here the interviews/statements are not independent of the events for example. I agree strongly with avoidance of primary sources, as I have seen over and over again how (using primary sources leads to misuse and WP:OR when editors pick and choose quotes etc to make a point that they want to make. Which leads to conflict!

Sorry about this --Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

First I am requesting that the edits be reverted that Governor Sheng did after your request to not edit right now. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that will be necessary.--Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This book seems to be a a reliable, secondary source and I would like your opinion. "The Visions of the Children: the apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje" by Connell, Janice T. York. St. Martin's Press 2007. see here [16] I am researching through the website University of Dayton website Bibliography section.

In regards to the structure of this page, what I see is that first we need to present what actually happened with Our Lady of Medjugorje in regards to the children, their visions, how that affected their lives and difficulties they faced in the beginning. When we explain this well, then the next step will be clear.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, Connell's book cannot be considered reliable. The author has no clue about in which country Medjugorje is located. "Medjugorje is located in Herzegovina while neighboring Bosnia awaits admittance to the European Union". Medjugorje is in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's one country. Also... the title of the book gives a hint about the book's reliability... "All the Messages of the Blessed Mother and the Latest Unfolding of God's Plan for the Human Race from Medjugorge" Regarding your structure proposal... This is an article, not a soap. It's about the apparitions, not the lives of the seers. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GS Your assessment is in error. She knows exactly where Medjugorje is... not sure where you got your information. Also I think it is best if you leave the comments to Slp1.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

From the intro accessible at Amazon. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GS Interesting because I read the same thing. This is why you and I should not engage in conversation. I actually researched the history of Yugoslavia and she is right on. I am stopping here until Slp1 returns. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Read "NOTE TO THE READER, 4th and 5th line. :) P. S. Do a better research. --Governor Sheng (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1: when I make comments or ask questions here, I am only addressing you.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Visions of the Children: The Apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje (2007) is published by St. Martin’s Griffin/MacMillan [17], a highly reputable publishing house. As such it is a reliable source. However, as Governor Sheng pointed out, the author is not exactly 'independent'. We can use but with some caution. Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1: Actually, there's not many reliable sources on the subject. This is what Chris Maunder states in his book "Our Lady of Nations":

Medjugorje presents a problem for research, as no thorough academic and objective treatment has been published in English. Just a few years ago, one might have referred to the work of Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax, but he has since been discredited, having been found guilty of fabricating data (see Jolić 2013). Therefore, his work cannot be included here, as it has no foundation. Zimdars-Swartz included Medjugorje in her work (1991: 233–44), but her research was undertaken in the 1980s and every one of the sources she cites for Medjugorje is a devotional publication in favour of the apparitions. In Apolito’s book on devotion to Mary on the Internet (2005), Medjugorje is covered at some length, although his focus is the apparition cult more widely and no this case in particular. There are a few academic articles available on specific issues such as pilgrimage and nationalism. The travel book by American journalist Brian Hall (1994), who includes several pages on Medjugorje, is useful for an understanding of the situation in the summer of 1991; as a neutral observer, his account, like Walter Starkie’s on Ezkioga, gives a helpful description of local people and their attitudes. In French, there is the anthropological study by Elisabeth Claverie of the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) (2003), who focuses on the belief system of pilgrims and devotees; she accompanied a pilgrimage herself. Yet much of Claverie’s account of the history is based on the work of Ivo Sivrić (1988), an opponent of the apparition cult of Medjugorje. Meanwhile, there are several other works antagonistic to Medjugorje that are no more objective than those in favour: they include the book by E. Michael Jones (1998), a right-wing Catholic journalist who has published anti-Semitic material.

P. S. I'm not sure whether I can write such a lengthy quote due to copyright... But... There it is. Also, this is why there must be some literature in Croatian, as it is impossible to rely only on English-language literature. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that is great, Governor Sheng. A great source for the problems writing this article using the sort of sources we should use! What a find! It spells out what we have found already, that there are very few reliable sources on this topic. But just because there are not many sources mean that we can use other, unreliable sources to compensate. This is particularly important because we are dealing with many living people here, so the very strict WP:BLP policy applies. In the long run, and although you might not believe it now, it will help writing an informative, accurate, neutral article. On the plus side, I think I have found one more good source Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States [18]. We should keep looking in English. Governor Sheng, do you know of reliable sources (preferably academic and objective) in Croatian? As noted they should be "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have researched extensively and have come to the determination, that this statement from Father Salinho probably won't be shared by anyone else. It was a private conservation between Lucia and her nephew who reported it. Maillard of course has every right to put that in her book but Wikipedia needs more information from other sources. Sister Emmanuel's book is still a valuable reference for this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not ready to help you with specific questions like this, but I will just say, yes, I think you are on the right track Red Rose 13, that Maillard needs support from other, more reliable sources to be included. Partly because there is so much hearsay involved in all this and partly because if it is an important enough fact to be included in this encyclopedia, more sources will have included it. Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In my researching I came across this book that could help with the controversial history section: http://www.queenship.org/product/Medjugorje-and-the-church-3062.html Medjugorje and the Church by Denis Noland. Denis Nolan is the director of Queen of Peace Ministries, Notre Dame, Indiana. Queen of Peace Ministries sponsors the annual Medjugorje National Conference at Notre Dame University. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I discovered this author Fr René Laurentin. Here is his bio on wikipedia [19] He received many awards, is well respected and very qualified. He has written about Medjugorje. Here is one of books [20] Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Laurentin is a very biased source, since he is regarded as one of the main promotors of the Medjugorje apparitions in the world and who is regarded as the person who contributed the most to Medjugorje as a wolrd wide phenomenon. Regarding the Croatian sources, Marijana Belaj: "Milijuni na putu. Antropologija hodočašća i sveto tlo Međugorja" can be cinsidered as reliable. I'll elaborate more on her later. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Governor Sheng (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, I am a bit disappointed that after I asked you to suggest recent scholarly, reliable, independent published sources you would suggest a 1984 book called "Is the Virgin Mary appearing at Medjugorje?: An urgent message for the world given in a Marxist country" published by something called "Word Among Us Press". His very bio here on Wikipedia indicates that he is not an independent source. Do you really think this is the sort of source that should be used for a serious encyclopedia article? Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What about this book - I copied and pasted from a previous discussion. From the preface of "Why He is a Saint" page 7, Slawomir Odir was appointed as the postulator (an official who presents a plea for beautification or canonization in the Roman Catholic Church) of the cause of beautification and canonization of Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Camillo Ruini informed him on May 13, 2005.

Here is Oder's reference, four condensed volumes of Positio. In Chapter: A Tribute to the Truth - "The declarations from 114 persons were heard: 35 Cardinals, 20 archbishops & bishops, 11 priests, 5 religioius, 3 nuns, 36 lay Catholics, 3 non-Catholics, and a Jew. Their declarations, along with other documents and writings, filled the thousands of pages of the Copia Pubblica from which were drawn the four condensed volumes of Positio." ..."To gather and evaluate all this material, as well as to listen to the witnesses who took part in this process, has been for me and for my colleagues a truly demanding job..." I would think that gathered direct testimony from the witnesses themselves by the postulator appointed by Cardinal Ruini would be reliable and trusted. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2020 (U

This is a duplicate posting. I responded below. I won't repeat, as the same answer applies. Slp1 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot locate your first comment. Where is it located?Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is at the bottom of this page, whether you also posted this same text.--Slp1 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, so regarding Marijana Belaj. She's a university professor at the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb. Here's here official bio from the university website - [21]. Her book received a positive recension from the University of Belgrade professor Lidija Radulović (note to be taken - Belgrade is in Serbia, a country of Eastern Orthodox background). Radulović writes (in Serbian) [22]:

Antropologija hodočašća, kao relativno nova poddisciplina kulturne antropologije, bogatija je za naučnu studiju koja uspešno rasvetljava i tumači, a istovremeno i otvara brojna kontroverzna pitanja fenomena Međugorja, posmatrajući ih, pre svega, iz perspektive individualnih i subjektivnih hodočasničkih iskustava. To je ono što u ovom delu autorka kao antropološkinja radi u nastojanju da razume hodočašće na terenu. Ona sledi tragove koje ostavljaju milijuni na putu – deskriptivno, analitički i interpretativno uspevajući da nam predoči raznovrsnost značenja simbola, praksi, verovanja i proživljenog iskustva. Pogled Marijane Belaj se tu ne završava, već uspešno doseže i prati kompleksne društvene procese, rasvetljavajući uticaj političkih ideja, istorijskih zbivanja, različitih strategija i interesa, pa i onih ekonomskih.

Translation

Anthropology of pilgrimage, as a relatively new sub-discipline of the anthropology of culture, is enriched by another scientific study that successfully enlightens and interprets, and at the same time, opens a number of controversial issues regarding the Medjugorje phenomenon, viewing them, foremost, from the perspective of the individual and subjective experience of the pilgrims. That is what the author as an anthropologist does in her effort to understand the pilgrimages on the ground. She follows the paths left by the millions on the way - descriptively, analytically, and interpretively successful presents us the diversity of meaning of symbols, practices, beliefs, and lived experience. The view of Marijana Belaj doesn't end there, but successfully reaches and follows the complex social processes, enlighting the influence of political ideas, historical events and different strategies and interests, even the economic ones.

--Governor Sheng (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all this information about the author. It seems like she is an academic so that is very promising. However, one of the major factors that WP considers is who published the book. What can you tell us about the publisher? Is it a respected publisher who would fact check the manuscript? An academic publisher preferable? By the way below I found two more reliable sources, in English, that seem very promising. [23][24] for at least parts of the story. It shows that with diligent searching you will be able to find more reliable sources in English on which to write the article. It is very important to find them. --Slp1 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd take Sullivan with a grain of salt, as I think he might be biased on the subject [25]. Regarding Belaj's book, here's the publisher's page on Croatian Wikipedia [26] and this is their official website [27]. On their website ([28]) they state that they publish works from humanities and social sciences. Notable authors whos books they published include Robert Eaglestone [29], Malcolm Gladwell [30], Kieron O'Hara [31], Estela V. Welldon [32], Denis Kuljiš [33], and so on and so forth. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the Belaj book has a reputable publisher, so I think you can consider that book a reliable source. About Sullivan, FYI you will notice that I never dismiss books because they are 'biased'. That is because reliable sources do not have be neutral. (see WP:BIASED. What is important whether there is editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and independence from the topic. An investigative journalist published by a reputable publisher probably meets that criteria. Slp1 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Slp1 I noticed that Govenor Sheng is now editing again. What are your guidelines? Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I just expanded the undisputed part on the economic effects. I'll stop, no problem. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be better to wait till we have found the sources that should be used (and the ones we shouldn't). But I am curious why do you think Governor Sheng should not edit the article, while you yourself have also made edits, Red Rose? It is one sauce for both the goose and the gander. Slp1 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Governor Sheng for reverting your edits. Btw, I studied your recent translation and it was exemplary! Slp1 did you actually look at what I did? I took down a section I created out of respect for the process and replaced a reference that Mannaran67 took out for no apparent reason. I have added no new material or references. We are all adults here. If you have control over this page and us then I think the same should apply to Mannaran67. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

LoL, cheers for that! :) At least from now on you can trust me I can speak Croatian/Serbian. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Also after enough references have been discovered what is the next step? Thank you for the three that you found. Can you please share how you found those? I have spent hours looking for the appropriate references with no luck, that is why I posted all that I had. I don't have much time in a day to give to this voluntary project and would appreciate if you shared your knowledge with us. Thank you for taking on this project. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Just go to google books, and type in "Medjugorje" (or whatever), check the results - book by book. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Manannan67: found a good source - [34]. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TY, I'll check it out. @Red Rose 13: I was not any part of the disagreements between you and Governor Shang, and if it happens that I find most of your sources thus far rather "loopy", that speaks to the sources. Please note, the fact that Oder interviewed a pile of witnesses, cannot negate the fact that the witnesses themselves may be forgetful, confused, mistaken, or indulging in a little enlightened self-interest, regardless of how accurately their statements may have been transcribed. My edits have been less about content than organizing and reducing the instances of material repeated in various sections. Where content has been added, it has been properly sourced. If you disagree, then please indicate specifics. No one has "control" over this page, and I see no reason to cease editing until you get back fr the library. Cheers. Manannan67 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Manannan67:, heh, what I meant is you found it. I wasn't clear enough. I just wanted Slp1 to give a look. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Herrero, Juan A. 1999. “Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division.” Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion [35] is an excellent source. Peer reviewed, academic source, so very high quality, even if it is a bit old it will be very useful for the early history.Slp1 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Slp1 here is a another Croatian reference I noticed on this page. Is this one ok? It is listed under the Journals & Magazines and is from 1993 - 27 years ago. Zovkić, Mato (1993). "Problematični elementi u fenomenu Međugorja" [The problematic elements in the Medjugorje phenomenon]. Bogoslovska smotra (in Croatian). 63 (1-2): 76-87. Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Mato Zovkic is an academic, who publishes the article in a peer-reviewed academic journal [36] so the answer is yes. Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am searching on google books and found this one. Not sure of the publisher but the author looks ok https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Religious-Phenomena-Gordon-Melton/dp/1578592097/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Encyclopedia+of+Religious+Phenomena&qid=1607683024&sr=8-1

And this one: https://www.amazon.com/Balkan-Idols-Religion-Nationalism-Yugoslav/dp/0195148568/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Balkan+Idols%3A+Religion+and+Nationalism+in+Yugoslav+States&qid=1607683465&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Medjugorje+Revisited+30+Years+of+Visions+Or+Religious+Fraud%3F&ref=nb_sb_noss

Searching through 13 pages of 10 each and this is all I found. I will continue looking through them.Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Still looking through Google when I have a moment. Here is one that looks good: The Vatican Prophecies: Investigating Supernatural Signs, Apparitions, and Miracles in the Modern Age Hardcover – September 15, 2015 by John Thavis [37]

The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena Gordon Melton, the author is an academic, and the publisher Visible Ink Press is reputable, so yes. However, note that encyclopedias of this sort are WP:TERTIARY sources; useful for some matters, but in general we should aim for WP:SECONDARY sources.Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States. I already evaluated this above. It is published by the Oxford University Press. So yes, a reliable source.

Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud?- I already evaluated this above. The answer is no, as it is self-published.

The Vatican Prophecies: Investigating Supernatural Signs, Apparitions, and Miracles in the Modern Age is by a journalist John Thavis [38] and published by reputable publisher, Viking, so yes, a reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Created a word document listing the references approved by you Slp1, approved with caution and not approved. I would be happy to share when we are finished. It was becoming overwhelming trying to keep track of them all.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is hard to keep track of things it will be good to collect them all in one place. I suggest that we have a section on this page where we list the sources that should or should not be used. Just to say also that I am only one who make this determination about reliable/unreliable. I am trying to 'show my work' about how I evaluate a source. I am hoping all editors here will start to write things like "this book seems like a reliable source because it is published by X and the author is Y, what do others think? or "this source currently used in the article seems like an unreliable source because X and Y, what do you guys think?". There will need to be a lot of this second question in the next few weeks, but we will come to that later. --Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Ogledalo pravde. Yes, the last chapter of the book is a collection of interviews and statements (the last chapter: "Članci, osvrti, razgovori"); however, the rest of the book is writen by Kutleša, where he used Vicka's diaries and tape recordings (etc) as a source. I have already posted this to WP:RSN [39], so I'll just copy what I wrote there.

I need an assessment of how reliable this author and his book Ogledalo pravde (written in Serbo-Croatian) is.

Dražen Kutleša is an archbishop of the Catholic Church and is an expert in canon law. He's an alumnus of the Pontifical Urban University in Rome. He mostly writes about inner-church issues, such as Herzegovina Affair or the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje.

Regarding the first issue, his approach is historical and regarding the latter issue, in his book Ogledalo pravde he comes out as a skeptic.

Ogledalo pravde was published by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, while he was still a priest. This book was used as a source for scholarly works ([40]) at Charles University (Prague, Czechia [41]), University of Osijek (Osijek, Croatia [42]), and Bursa Uludağ University (Bursa, Turkey [43]). It was also used as a refrence in at least three other books - Belaj, Bulat and Perić. His book is mentioned by mainstream media in Croatia ([44]) such as Jutarnji list [45] (2nd most read), Slobodna Dalmacija [46] (9th most read), Večernji list [47] (4th most read), Express, published by 24 sata (Croatia) [48] (17th most read); in Bosnia and Herzegovina [49] such as Slobodna Bosna [50] (9th most read).

I believe it can be used as a source in this article here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry for the very long delay. Thank you very much for all this research and information. After looking long and hard into it all, I think my opinion is that this is really a WP:PRIMARY source. The author (and the book's content) are very, very close to the story and the events. As such, it can be used but only with lots and lots and lots of caution. You say that it has been used as a source by reliable secondary sources, then use those sources. They are the ones who can pick out the parts that are important and analyze the information in the book. I realize that this is frustrating, because students and scholars are usually taught to go to the original source for information; but in writing an encyclopedia we privilege the secondary sources.

Having said that, looking at a few of the sources you mentioned above I find that they are undergraduate, diploma and master's level scholarship. These are not adequate and cannot be used as they are not considered to have had enough external peer review. PhD level dissertations could be used, but again with some caution. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP

In the long run, I promise you that seeking out the high quality secondary sources will help you very much in avoiding conflict while writing for Wikipedia. Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I need an evaluation of this book: [51] and this article [52] --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Internet and the Madonna: Religious Visionary Experience on the Web is published by Universty of Chicago Press. A high quality reliable source. Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Contribution to the Study of the Phenomenon of Međugorje: Sound Recordings From the Early Days of Apparitions by Tibor Komar. Published in

Ethnologica Dalmatica in 2012. This is a peer-reviewed journal. A reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am going through this section making sure I got all the references. I posted this one but somehow it was missed. http://www.queenship.org/product/Medjugorje-and-the-church-3062.html Medjugorje and the Church by Denis Noland. Denis Nolan is the director of Queen of Peace Ministries, Notre Dame, Indiana. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A primary source.Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I looked up the publisher for "Why He is a Saint" and it looks like a reliable source to me. What do you think Slp1? Rizzoli [53] I posted the details above about this book. The author, Slawomir Oder was appointed to receive testimonies both positive and negative about Pope John Paul II. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Another primary source Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Also this publisher seems ok too. It has been publishing for 50 years. "About Veritas Publishing - Veritas is Ireland’s leading religious publisher and retailer. We publish over 40 books each year in the areas of theology, scripture, prayer, spirituality, parenting, counselling, children’s issues, social commentary and liturgical resource. We also publish religious education texts for primary and post-primary schools, which are used throughout Ireland, as well as in Scotland." Here is their website [54] What do you think Slp1?

I am specifically looking at this book "Scientific and Medical Studies on the Apparitions at Medjugorje " 1987 by Rene Laurentin (Author), Henri Joyeux (Author) About the authors: This study by world renowned mariologist, Fr. Rene Laurentin, and scientist Professor Henri Joyeux of the University of Montpellier, sets out to answer many questions. Google books: [55] Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Another very obvious primary source; very old.Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1:, I need your opinion after my additional comments on Ogledalo pravde, which can be seen above. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry for the delay. I will take a look at all this again. Slp1 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Crappy sources that need to be removed.

Hello again. We worked above to identify good, scholarly sources that should be used at the bulk of the article. The other side of this issue is that we need material that is only sourced to poor sources that do not meet the standard of a reliable source. In order to save time, I have made a list of sources currently in the article which at first glance seem unlikely to be unreliable. I may easily have made mistakes, and if you think that any of these are in fact reliable (ie "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") please let us all know why underneath this post.

• Perić, Ratko. "The Attacks of the Medjugorje 'Apparition' Against the Bishop Pavao Žanić", May 2, 2017
• Žanić, Pavao (1990). La verita su Medjugorje [The truth about Medjugorje] (in Italian). Mostar: Diocese of Mostar-Duvno.
• "Autentyczność objawień w Medziugorie". eKai (in Polish). 11 April 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2020.
• "Archbishop reveals a surprise about Medjugorje". Catholic Online. 23 August 2017. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• Approval by the Bishop". The Fatima Center. 1930. Retrieved 23 November 2020
• "Detailed Description of Our Lady, the Queen of Peace, as she appears in Medjugorje". Medjugorje - Place of Prayer and Reconciliation. Retrieved 8 Nov 2020.
• "Pope Francis' opinion on the Medjugorje apparitions". Rome Reports. 2017-05-13. Retrieved 2018-03-17.
• Majdandžić-Gladić, Snježana (2017). "O međugorskim zelotima ili Gospom protiv Gospe" [On the zealots of Medjugorje or with Gospa against Gospa]. Vjera i djela (in Croatian). Retrieved 15 August 2020.
• "The Gospels According to Christ? Combining the Study of the Historical Jesus with Modern Mysticism", Daniel Klimek". Glossolalia.sites.yale.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-06-11. Retrieved 2013-04-01.
• "Vatican Mission Begins in Medjugorje! Archbishop Hoser's Historic Mass". Medjugorje Miracles. 23 July 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• "Virus deters Catholic pilgrims from Medjugorje". CRUX. AP Archive. March 15, 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
• "What Pope's Envoy concluded in Medjugorje?". 03 April 2017. 21 July 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• Žanić, Pavao. ""Izjava Mostarskog Biskupa o Medjugorju", July 25, 1987
• Kuharic, Franjo. Press Release, Glas Koncila, January 18, 1987
• "Biskupije Mostar-Duvno i Trebinje-Mrkan | Dioeceses Mandetriensis-Delminiensis et Tribuniensis-Marcanensis". Cbismo.com (in Croatian). Retrieved 2017-01-08.
• Perić, Ratko. "Letter to Thierry Boutet", 2 October 1997
• Svidercoschi, Gian Franco. "Will Pope St. John Paul II Influence the Papal Pronouncement on Medjugorje?", Aleteia, July 16, 2015
• Madrid, Patrick. "Medjugorje and 'The Maciel Effect", April 6, 2010
• Father Hnilica (25 March 1994). Fatima (cassette tape). Minneapolis, MN: Resurrection Tapes.
• Gaspari, Antonio (November 1996). "Medjugorje Deception or Miracle?". Inside the Vatican. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
• Harris, Elise (12 May 2019). "Pope okays pilgrimage to Medjugorje, says apparitions 'need study'". CRUX. Retrieved 23 November 2020.
• "Vatican Mission Begins in Medjugorje! Archbishop Hoser's Historic Mass". Medjugorje Miracles. 23 July 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• "Medjugorje website". Medjugorje.org. Retrieved 2013-04-01.
• "The Visionaries of Medjugorje". Retrieved 2020-11-04.
• San Martin, Inés. "As debate rages over Medjugorje, maybe a place of prayer is enough", Crux, September 23, 2016
• "Local Bishop: Medjugorje Apparitions Are Not Credible". www.total-croatia-news.com.
• "The Truth About Medjugorje—Donal Foley Part I". January 29, 2018.
• Coffin, Patrick (September 23, 2019). "147: The Medjugorje Deception—Dr. E. Michael Jones".
• "Politicizing the Virgin Mary: The Instance of the Madonna of Medjugorje". Csicop.org. Retrieved 2015-08-02.

--Slp1 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

So happy you are back :). We really need you. In regards to removing references when we remove one and if it is the only source used, do we leave a "reference needed" or do we delete the words associated with it? Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's finalize the list first. But basically material sourced to an unreliable source that relates to a living person should be deleted per BLP -though ideally a search for a reliable source should be made first to check if a new and better source can be found. If the text does not relate to a living person, then it becomes an editorial choice: either delete the text and the reference, or delete the reference and leave a "citation needed" tag. The choice partly depends on whether the text is actually contributing usefully to the article. And if it is, the respectful thing to do is to search for a reliable source yourself rather than leave a "citation needed" tag.Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Rome Reports, Crux, and CNS are well-respected mainstream news sources. Elizium23 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elizium23. Thanks. I have struck the Rome Reports and Crux articles from the list. I don't see any CNS there. If I have missed any please feel free to strike them too. Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Inside the Vatican seems to have a solid editorial team and oversight. I have seen it cited elsewhere. Its website presents as a bit tabloidy, but I think it is respectable. Elizium23 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I am rather glad. The Gaspari article seems like a good summary of some of the earlier thematic strandsSlp1 (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Daniel Klimek journal article. We already approved his book "Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience" And this article listed his sources and was published by the YDS Journal - Yale Divinity School [56] It seems reliable, fact checked and independent to me. The problem for Wikipedia is that it is from the way-back-machine and I cannot find a way to present it here. Your thoughts Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, can I ask you to read up on WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD. You quite often use indentations that imply you are replying to something, when in fact you are starting a new topic. It makes the conversations on this page hard to follow at times. It isn't always easy, I know!!

Thank you I will.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Now about Klimek. I don't think it was published in the YDS journal (which actually doesn't exist). Instead it was published in Glossolalia which is a graduate student publication, peer-reviewed, but still. It was written while he was doing his Master's, apparently. His book, published by the OUP is a much better source-also more recent. I will cross it out, though, as I don't think it is a crappy source, just not the best. Slp1 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree the book is much better. Just an FYI in regards to the journal see above the link to it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Vatican Mission Begins... the better resource is Sarajevo Times [57]Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• What Pope's Envoy concluded in Medjugorje? [58] is already linked to Sarajevo Times it just needs to be properly sited on Wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not impressed with the Sarajevo Times. Although it has an editor in chief (who also works for Xinhua News Agency, the Chinese State News Agency!), it describes itself as a "news portal" with posts. It just reposts articles on its website, just like it did with that second article: here it is on Medjugorje.org and exactly the same article on the Sarajevo Times website. The goals on the About Us page are not impressive. It posts articles with initials only. Sarajevo Times sounds grand, but I would not consider it a reliable source.Slp1 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. I however originally found it on the Medjugorje.org site and they gave credit to Sarajevo Times and I clicked on the link from that .org site. The link you gave above is not working. When I have a moment I will go find it again. Strange that it is owned by a Chinese company! Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The article on the Medjugorje website is given above, and it does not credit Sarajevo Times. I fixed the links, sorry about that. I did not mean to imply the ST was owned by a Chinese company, just that the editor-in-chief keeps strange company. The fact is, neither website is a reliable source, so it does not seem worth expending any more energy trying to track them now. Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that this source should be accurate and ok to use. This is a press release from the vatican itself. [59] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs)

It seems like this is a bit off topic for this thread (deciding on bad sources to remove). But you are trying to find better sources so I will go with it this time. Three things:

• 1. Press Releases are not independent, are primary sources and often push a particular perspective etc, so generally should not be used. See WP:PRSOURCE
• 2. In this case, the press release would probably be a good enough source for the fact that the man was appointed, but obviously not for the other verbiage about his appointment that is in the article currently. But an additional problem is that a PR release does not help determine whether this is important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Maybe these appointments are made 3 times a year? We don’t want long lists of pointless names. Maybe he got sick after the first day and went home? The fact is that poor sources like this should are very problematic when determining the WP:WEIGHT to assign to a topic. That is why .....
• 3. Always, always go for the best sources. In this case the Klimek book mentions Hoser’s appointment and its purpose. [60]. An excellent scholarly secondary source. But I am still left wondering why this is important or notable enough for inclusion. Klimek gives 2 sentences in his whole book to this man. I am not 100% convinced that he makes the cut for our (much shorter) article. One way to figure this out would be to see if other of the recent high quality scholarly sources mention this appointment. Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I do appreciate you taking the time to explain this. The reason Klimek doesn't mention the rest about Hoser because it became apparent after his book was published. I checked the other books you ok'd and none of them are more current. While researching - this is what I have discovered:

•The Holy See is the name given to the government of the Roman Catholic Church, which is led by the pope as the bishop of Rome.[61]

•On May 31, 2018 Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Henryk Hoser as Apostolic Visitator with a special role for the parish of Medjugorje, indefinitely and ad nutum Sanctae Sedis. [62] [(Ad nutum sanctae sedis means "at the disposition of the Holy See." It refers to any circumstance involving a conflict of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, where Rome decides to take the matter under its own jurisdiction and reserves to itself the right to make a final judgment on the matter.)

•It is exclusively a pastoral ministry, continuing the mission of the Special Envoy of the Holy See for the parish of Medjugorje, which was entrusted to Archbishop Hoser on February 11, 2017.[63]

•Pope Francis made Peter Palic the new Bishop of Mostar on 1 July 2020 [64]

•Bishop Palic said at this moment, the Holy See, through the Apostolic Visitor, follows the events in Medjugorje. It will be my obligation to follow the instructions of the Holy See. [65] I found this link on the page Governor Sheng recently created about Bishop Palic [66] The source on that page is from Večernji List in Croatian with the option translate to English by Google.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

These facts have yet been added to the Our Lady of Medjugorje page because you have asked us not to edit right now. Also as you can see some of it is either going to have to be through interviews or newspaper articles etc... Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. Two things. First, can you add links to the reliable sources you used to source these points? Please add the links to the end of each statement above. This is an important habit to get into.

Second, please note that just because they are “facts” does not mean they should be added to the article. Again, it is a question of WP:WEIGHT, but also please read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This article already has way too much unnecessary detail. It is part of the reason it is so hard to follow. Slp1 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I will do that but the definitions were for our benefit, do you think they would help the reader as well?

In regards to what I wrote above, most of it was for our benefit to help understand the importance of including a few sentences on this. (1) it is important for Wikipedia pages to stay up-to-date with current information (2) It is unusual for the pope to send an Apostolic Visitor to a parish (3) important to note that this Visitor reports only to the Pope/Holy See who will have the final say not the local Bishop. The pope has taken control away from the Bishop. The Holy See is in the midst of studying the apparitions. It has been 39 years since the first vision. I will propose a few sentences with a reliable source. Fyi I am not a catholic and have researched and studied all this since October. We can always wait to do this until after the page is cleaned up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think you need to bother with the definitions. A few more things, however Actually WP is WP:NOTNEWS and it only needs to stay as up-to-date as high quality reliable sources. Your second point above sounds like your opinion. (e.g Pope has taken control away from the Bishop; it is unusual..... etc etc ) Once again, please provide reliable sources for each point, if you want it to be included. Like I said, it is important to get into this habit of starting with the reliable sources, and providing them up front. It doesn't matter a fig to me whether you are a Catholic or not, or how long you have been interested in the topic. What is important is that you need to provide is high quality sources which precisely verify each sentences you add to Wikipedia. Slp1 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Slp1 I would like to create an area/section to place my proposed additions to the article with references if approved, they then can be added to the page once the page has been cleaned up. I can call it Red Rose edit proposals or something like that. Your thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I have found excellent sources for the Description section. So far one of the books recommended has it in there.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1:Added links. Please look them over especially the one on Petar Palic, the new Bishop that oversees Medjugorje, newly created Wikipedia page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, those look like reliable news sources. I am still asking the question why some of this information is important enough to be included in the article. One thing that I have seen suggested is to think about what would seem important to mention if you were 10-50 years in the future. We need to look at the big picture, not get mired in masses of detail. Slp1 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Language- Seers

Hello again. One thing that needs to be discussed in the language in this article. The word seers is used frequently. This term seems to me to be likely not of NPOV. It suggest something that is, from what I understand, quite disputed. Is this the term used in highest quality, most scholarly sources? If so, fine. If not, what terms do they use? --Slp1 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I'm the one who introduced the term in this article, and am the only one using it. Another term used is "visionary". For example, Mauder in his book Our Lady of Nations uses the terms "seer" and "visionary" interchangeably as synonyms. However, I agree we could use some more neutral term if such a term exists. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I looked in:

• Medjugorje and the Supernatural - Terms used: Marian Apparitions, Visionary
  
• Balkans Idols etc. - Terms used: Marian Apparitions, Visionary
  
• Our Lady of the Nations - Terms used: Marian Apparitions, mostly visionary saw seer once but I didn't look at every single word.
  

Hope this helps. I can look in others if you want. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are the exact data. Medjugorje and the Supernational: seer – 53; visionary – 622; Balkan Idols: seer – 4; visionary – 1; Our Lady of Nations: seer – 109; visionary – 514. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! That's great. Please share how you did that!Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to do that for The Vatican Prophecies, A Pope and a President John Paul II and The Gospels According to Christ? Combining the Study of the Historical Jesus with Modern Mysticism. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rose, however, I've done nothing worthy of praise. I bought the e-books and simply counted the words by using the search engine. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

But how do you do that? count the words by using the search engine?Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Just like you do in a document. There is usually a search function in electronic books. When I am signed into Amazon I can often use the search function to search for words, even without buying the book. Using that I have checked the Vatican Prophesies book. It uses visionaries exclusively. Also occasionally "children", which occurs to me would be a very neutral word, especially for when they are young. Governor Sheng, could you take a look in those books for "children" too? Also, I guess it is important to know if the word is in quotation marks or if there are other qualifiers. I notice that the Catholic News Services (and other sources) puts "seers" and "visionaries" in inverted commas and talks about alleged apparitions.[67] It would be useful to know what other of the most reliable sources do in this regard. Slp1 (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I searched in The Miracle Detective An Investigative Reporter - Visionary 138, Seer 119, Children 97 (sometimes referring to children who were not seers or visionaries. Apparitions 213 and Vision 74. These words were not put in quotes.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Searched A Pope and a President John Paul II - Visionary 13, Seer 0, Children was used for the visionaries but also for others so I searched for Fatima children - 23, Medjugorje children - 3, Apparitions - 34, Vision was hard to know because it is more of a generic word, used in other instances. No quotes were used. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Searched on Google books - The Internet and the Madonna: Religious Visionary Experience on the Web Visionary - 13, Seer - 5, Children - 5. Not sure if it is accurate.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Searched on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Google books and could not find Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion I am thinking this is not a good reference. It seems out of print.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your searches. Just to say, being out of print does not make a source "not good". In this case, it is a journal article, and can be found most easily (but incompletely for me at least) here [68]Slp1 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you find it on google by searching for a journal article instead of book?Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to be taken, although the word "child" or "children" might be used here, even by reliable sources, the term itself is incorrect. "Biologically, a child (plural children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty (Child). We're rather talking about teenagers here. Regarding the word "child" in the books I mentioned, here's the data: Maunder's book gives 261 results; Klimek's book gives 42 results; and Perica's book 44. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The article as of Dec. 13, 2020

@Slp1: I was looking for Archive 3 on our talk page and it disappeared. Does anyone know where it is?Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I just found the archives up near the top of the page and I clicked on Archive 3 and noticed that it was blanked by Governor Sheng. It was contested by another editor. Here is the link [69] Please revert your delete.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not revert my edit, because all the talks have been transferred to Archives no. 1 and no. 2. There's no issue here. The limit is 150k kilobytes, so I just transferred old talks to the previous, already-existing archive pages that haven't reached the limit yet. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Now I needed to look at all the archives and you messed with all three. There is a note on each archive page "This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page." Btw it was not me who contested your blanking on Archive 3. You will need to revert all of your archive edits. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: Was a little surprised to find Archive 3 blanked, but after a little research figured out what was going on. As long as the information is archived and available somewhere, I don't have a problem; and I don't see adding additional sections as editing the contents. However, it would have been helpful if an edit summary had indicated that the material had not been deleted so much as moved. Manannan67 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, is that Governor Sheng messed with all three archives. The edits all need to be reverted. There is no way that we can check what he has done, even if it was meant well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Governor Sheng, I actually think it would be better if you reverted your edits to the archives. It does not matter how many bites are in each archive. Let the bot do the archiving. That way it is easy to follow the link provided by the bot to find archived sections when needed. --Slp1 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Good Morning Governor Sheng, waiting for you to revert your edits in the Archives 1,2 & 3.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1:Thank you Governor Sheng for reverting the archive edits - it showed up in the upper section but not the lower. I went in an added it to the lower sectionRed Rose 13 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Governor Sheng. Much appreciated.--Slp1 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1: On another note - Yesterday I was wondering who the current Bishop of Mostar is and found that a new one had been appointed to begin July of 2020 by searching on Wikipedia. When I went to his Petar Palić page, I found many errors in translation, spelling and punctuation and corrected some of it. See here [70] Clearly there are still translation problems. One example: Psalm 23 "Though I pass through a gloomy Valley, beside me your rod and your staff are there, to hearten me." It should be: "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." I don't know what to do about it but it makes me want to check all the articles that Governor Sheng edits in. Governor Sheng maybe you have a solution? Have someone else translate? I don't know. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Rose, there are many bible translations. What you need to do is just google mine, and you'll solve the issues you have. Your example of my mistranslation is plainly stupid. I will not participate nor will I pay attention to your silly accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Governor Sheng (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your translation is also missing words. Also here is another example which is easy to see on the History page:

along with Apostolic Visitator Henryk Hoser and the parson friar Marinko Šakota and several other priests.

along with the Apostolic Visitor Archbishop Henryk Hoser and the parish priest Fr. Marinko Šakota and several other priests.

Just go here and see the others [71]

My intent here is too have accuracy on Wikipedia and I am trying to work with you to come up with a solution.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, just leave Governor Sheng and their edits alone. This bickering back and forth is getting very tiresome. Slp1 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Visitor and Visitator are both correct. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visitator). Parson or parish priest are synonymous. Or could be. Parson heads the parish, a parish priest might just be a member of the parish. Friar means that Sakota is a friar, ie a Franciscan friar. You're really becoming boring with this nonsense. Your examples are really, really stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Governor Sheng (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)<

@Slp1: Hello Slp1 are you going to return here to continue working with us? You have been gone since Dec 13 - two weeks ago. Are you alright? Perhaps you are ill? I hope all is well. Please let us know. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your concern. I am well but have been busy. Also, to be honest a bit disappointed that the two of you continue to snipe at each other unnecessarily. Anyway, I am back to give it another shot. Please see below Slp1 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad you are back. I will do my best to let you deal with the issues and will keep my eyes on my own "plate" so to speak.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1:I am thinking there should be another category. This is a learning process for me. The book "Why He Is A Saint" is published by a highly reputable non Christian publisher called Rizzoli, New York. It first started a book store on 5th Avenue in NY in 1964 and then 10 years later began their publisher house in 1974 [72] Secondly there are two authors Slawomir Oder who is Monsignor Sławomir Oder, the postulator of John Paul II's beatification cause, and Saverio Gaeta [73] who has written numerous Christian books and is editor-in-chief for Christian Family. We know Oder is a primary source but is Gaeta as well. Oder is primary because he was assigned the job of postulator of JPII beautification cause and the fact he is a Monsignor in the Catholic Church. Gaeta has written many books about Catholic saints and works for "Christian Family" (Famiglia Christiana) the "Edizioni San Paolo" of Cinisello Balsamo (Mi), conducted by the religious of the Society of San Paolo. Gaeta is not a clergy in the Catholic Church but a lay person. So the publisher of the book is highly respected, reputable, neutral company. One author would be considered a primary source but the 2nd author not so much. I am thinking it is an good source for this article. Slp1 what are you thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking these questions. That is what a learning process is all about. You are quite right that Rizzoliusa is a reputable publisher. That is a very good step in meeting WP:SOURCE. The problem is that the whole purpose of that book is to make the case that John Paul was a saint. And Gaeta did not write sections of the book: the authorship is Slawomir Oder with Saverio Gaeta which suggests that he was something of a ghostwriter, helping to formulate the prose rather than the content. So all to say, I still think that it is a primary source, that is best avoided. And there is hardly anything in the book about Medjugorje that doesn't already have much better reliable sources. The only possible thing of interest is "In 1987, during a short conversation, Karol Wojtyła confided to the seer Mirjana Dragičević: "If I weren't pope, I would already be in Medjugorje confessing." These is clearly attributed hearsay from a very very involved primary source, and so should not be used unless other reliable sources repeat it (which I note they don't). Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your help. I notice on Wikipedia it is ok on occasion to use primary sources but as you say with caution. When the time comes we can discuss the boundaries of caution ok?.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Searching and studying more sources. Wayne Weible a Protestant publisher & journalist first approached the phenomenon of Medjugorje as something to write about for his column. The book takes you along on his journey. Medjugorje The Message [74] The publisher is Paraclete Press [75] publishes all Christian denominations including Catholic and is an arm of the Community of Jesus.[76]. Not sure how to judge Paraclete Press. I need guidance with that. In regards to the author he is independent of Medjugorje as he begins his interaction with Medjugorje and is a sceptic. He writes first hand of his conversion in this book. He goes to Medjugorje and has interactions with some of the seers. I am inclined to add this book to the Useable in some situations, with caution section. What are your thoughts? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are doing a good job looking for sources, thinking about independence, publisher etc. I think Paraclete Press probably meets the criteria for being a reliable publisher. But anytime you are talking about a first hand account of a conversion you have a primary source. So, yes, add it to the primary source section. But I can't emphasize enough that focussing on reliable secondary sources is necessary, and these primary sources will be used only in rare situations. It is the secondary sources that we need!!Slp1 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the following two posts to the discussion 1/27/21 so they don't get lost. Please go here to discuss [77]

Here is Looking for a Miracle Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures By Joe Nickell · 1998 The publisher was started in 1969 and publishers a variety of types of books [78] Seems like a good publisher. The author writes on a variety of topics and seems like a good secondary source. [79]. The only way to pull info from this book is to purchase it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1:@Governor Sheng:I agree with the editor that deleted the Prelude. (1) it has nothing to do with Our Lady of Medjugorje visitations (2) If it should be anywhere on Wikipedia it should be on the page about the town of Medjugorje (3) it doesn't belong anywhere on this page let alone as a prelude. A prelude is an introduction or lead into the article. I was going to reverted your revert but decided it is best to discuss it here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Hello I think we have got to the point where we can tackle the structure of the article. I have done a bit of reading and this is an initial proposal. I have taken into account the suggestions of Governor Sheng and Red Rose above. It is just a start. So comments, suggestions, changes are welcome. One thing that is important is that controversy (and skepticism sections) are deprecated. See WP:STRUCTURE Any controversies and negative aspects need to be incorporated into the main text of the article.

• Lede -this gets written at the the end as a summary of the full article
• Background- the political and religious context for the apparitions.
• History- the story of the alleged apparitions, including brief bios of the children (up to the point of the event)
• Government response
• Catholic Church response

• the 4 investigations
• Positions

• Effects - pilgrimages and important figures, economics,
• Later years of the children (only where relevant)
• Other related visions

--Slp1 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me as a starting point. We can tweak it as we go along. There is one thing I would like to bring back to the page and that is the reference list. The Reference List was in place in the beginning and then it was changed by Governor Sheng. He changed the name to Footnotes [80] I would like to go back to the reference list. Every reference is properly formatted and when you click on the reference number it takes you directly to the formatted reference. Now we go to some shortened name and then to a formatted reference. Also, with the detailed reference list, I don't think it is necessary then to create another list of books, websites, etc... It doubles the work. Also all the pages I edit on have the same structure.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Looks good. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1:@Governor Sheng:I was wondering if we can agree to a time frame. Do you both think it is possible to check in here every two days? The way we are going it is going to take months to finish the page. Let's get this done. :) We are all busy so what are your thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Red Rose. I do agree that we should get started, although personally slow but steady is my creed. Now that you are both generally okay with the structure, what I propose it that I will take upon myself to do the reorganizing. If you both agree, that is. I want to leave most of the editing to you, but I also think that this is something that could help you to get started. At the same time, I will try to deal with the unreliable sources. If I think the information is interesting and important and likely to be sourceable elsewhere, I will leave the basic information but add a citation needed tag. If in my opinion the content seems superfluous andéor unlikely to be found in good sources, I will copy the sentences to a section on this page, and you can then see (a) whether you want it included or not and if so, (b) whether the info is to be found in high quality sources. Or perhaps (a) and (b) should be the other way around.

Please let me know if you would like me to do this. Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds fair and good to me. I look forward to it! Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have started. It is a long job. Hopefully it will be done soon.Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you working on it somewhere else and then going to change the whole page all at once? I am going to start gathering information with the references to add as the time comes. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am really sorry that I have been so quiet. It has been an extraordinarily busy time for me. I will get back to this soon, hopefully this weekend at the latest. Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussions & new references for the article as of 1/27/21

I copied & pasted these two posts here so they aren't lost in past discussions.

• Here is "Looking for a Miracle Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures" By Joe Nickell · 1998 The publisher was started in 1969 and publishes a variety of types of books [81] Seems like a good publisher. The author writes on a variety of topics and seems like a good secondary source. [82]. The only way to pull info from this book is to purchase it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

yes, this is a reliable source, but a bit old. --Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Slp1:@Governor Sheng:I agree with the editor that deleted the Prelude. (1) it has nothing to do with Our Lady of Medjugorje visitations (2) If it should be anywhere on Wikipedia it should be on the page about the town of Medjugorje (3) it doesn't belong anywhere on this page let alone as a prelude. A prelude is an introduction or lead into the article. I was going to reverted your revert but decided it is best to discuss it here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have seen this media reference throughout the Medjugorje pages - KAI or eKAI. Here is the about page [83] It seems like an excellent source to me. The About page says it all. What do you both think? Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be okay for the position of the Catholic Church about certain matters. --Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also when I say Medjugorje pages, there are a number of pages some created by you, Governor Sheng, that are related to the Our Lady of Medjugorje page. When we are finished with this page, we will need to look over those pages as well. The references used or not used will need to apply to these pages as well. Also a couple of the articles look like they need to be shortened and added to this page. I am making a list as I research that we can go over later. Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

eKAI or KAI is the Catholic Informative Agency, owned by the Polish Episcopal Conference. Such media exists all around the world, and are owned by the respective national episcopal conferences. As for me, they should be regarded as very reliable, especially as they deal with the church news, almost exclusively. Now, regarding the "Prelude" section. Yes, I agree it's out of touch with the subject. However, I thought Slp would do the editing, at least make an outline. You can rm it if you want. I care not. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I just removed the prelude Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1: I need some guidance on the reference used on another page that relates to Medjugorje - Caldwell, Simon. "Sex, lies and apparitions". The Spectator. The link takes you there [84] It says a person can read the article as a guest but you need to register in order to even get the 3 free views. I researched The Spectator which turns out to be a very old and established magazine. I searched for Simon Caldwell who is no longer listed as one of their journalists, perhaps he is deceased. It seems there are only two articles on the website written by him one in May 2009 and Sept 2008. The article reads like an opinion piece with no references to back up his statements. To me this doesn't seem like a reliable, unbiased article for Wikipedia. Since you are busy right now, we can go over this later on. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Such magazines do not have sources listed as a scientific paper. I don't see sources at the NYT or CNN articles. This is just nonsense. The source is very reliable. Plus, Caldwell is a reliable journalist, he also writes articles for Catholic News Service, while his articles are conveyed by the National Catholic Reporter, America and Crux. [85][86][87] --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is useful to look up sources here. WP:RSP. Based on discussions there "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG" Caldwell is a published author on the topic, so the article is probably useable with attribution.Please note that reliable sources do not need to be unbiased, nor do they need references... they need to be published, independent, and with a reputation for fact checking Slp1 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you that is very helpful. So whenever we use a quote from someone like Simon Caldwell we would say something like: "According to Simon Caldwell, a journalist" or "The journalist, Simon Caldwell says" or Simon Caldwell's opinion is..."? WP:RSP added a brackets.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but only if Caldwell's opinion is somehow interesting or informative. Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also (1) shouldn't there be references also in the introduction to an article not just in the body of the article? (2)How often in a paragraph should we have a reference?Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, references are not need in the Lede of the article (see WP:LEDE--Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

this is from the lead page - As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. - what is meant by carefully sourced as appropriate?Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1:@Governor Sheng: Governor Sheng

• (1) I notice you are creating and editing pages strongly associated with Our Lady of Medjugorje using questionable sources and authors like Ratko Perić and Kutlesa that we have already gone over, plus adding new questionable sources. You are using your references from the list "Useable in some situations, with caution - Primary sources"- Use lots and lots of caution and using them for controversial things on these pages. Pavol Hnilica, Tomislav_Vlašić, Jozo Zovko, Herzegovina Affair
• (2) Also the above pages and the ones listed here need to be cleaned up and balanced - Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Petar PalićThere might be others I haven't discovered yet.
• (3) I have made clarification edits using the exact same English reference used in the article but you reverted it. Anyone can edit on these pages and one cannot just revert those edits because you don't like it or don't like the person. I just put the edit back in and it is located here [88] Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• (4) We will all need to work together on these pages that are offshoots from the Our Lady of Medjugorje page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ratko Perić and Dražen Kutleša are good, usable sources. (1) Slp gave his opinion on Perić, stating that he is biased on the subject. Herzegovina Affair and other people are completely another issues. Slp stated that Kutleša needs to be attributed in this article, only when some strong controversial statement is given, not for blatant facts, like when someone was born, or when someone was ordained a priest and so forth. (3) You cannot use Croatian sources, as you cannot use google translate nor do you speak Croatian. This is the same thing you accused me of, and now you want to edit via google translate. Borderline hyporcitical, aren't you? (4) You're free to contribute. I work with thousands of wikipedians. And I'll add (5) – this is not place for such a discussion. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, no, all pages are covered by the same policies about sourcing. You should not be using those primary sources on other pages, particularly about topics involving living people. The only exception is that it is permissible to use such a source (with care) on the author's page as long as they are not about other living people . See WP:SELFSOURCE. But these discussions should be happening on the talk page of the articles concerned. --Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1: I am under the impression that these sources Useable in some situations, with caution - Primary sources- Use lots and lots of caution have restrictions on their use throughout Wikipedia not just on this page. We are in a learning process to become better editors on Wikipedia in general. Please share your insight on ways to use these references - what is meant by 'some situations'? I have a couple of books in that section as well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC) @Govenor Sheng: you created a box at the bottom of the pages I mentioned above including Herzegovina Affair that links them to Our Lady of Medjugorje. Here is an example just scroll down to the bottom of the page [89] Automatically these pages need to have independent reliable sources because that is what Wikipedia expects. In regards to you reverting a recent edit I was referring to my edits, using the English book already used on the Tomaislav Vlasic page, that provided context to what was being stated - I expanded it a bit using the same source and you reverted it. I just put it back and asked you not to revert my edit. In regards to your many references in the Croatian language I am able to use Google translate to read what is being said and if there is a problem, I can bring it up on the talk page. I have hope that we can each respect each other as we edit these pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The box wasn't created by me, but it was edited by me at some point. All pages need to have independent, reliable (etc.) sources. I have not reverted your most recent edits on the article about Vlasic. Yes, you are free to check my sources in Croatian, however, I was reffering yo your edits at the Petar Palić article. - Governor Sheng (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. Please review my edits on Petar Palić and see if my interpretation was correct. If you think they are not correct please explain why.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

So, I have a confirmation you believe my translations? This wasn't the case earlier. - Governor Sheng (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes mostly they seem right. On the Petar Palic page the quote "Thou I walk through the shadow of death, I will fear no evil" is the quote that should be used there. t is the prominent quote used and the only one I have ever seen or heard. The one you posted I have never seen or heard anywhere - "Though I pass through a gloomy Valley, beside me your rod and your staff are there, to hearten me." I Sometimes I see small grammatical errors. I think we can work together if you allow me to show an error that I see also. I know Wikipedia likes us to paraphrase if we don't use the exact quotations. When quoting a person when we need to be exact. I use google translate to read things in other languages so I get the general idea and am able to paraphrase. If you are uncomfortable with that, then please feel free to double check me. Also, if it seems off to me, I can ask what you think. What do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Palić's motto, there are multiple Bible translations. I'm not gonna object to replacing it with another, more often used translation. Any suggestion from you or any other editor is welcome. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the introduction to a page also needs to be referenced [90]and it is a concise synopsis of the article. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been looking over guidelines and found this one I thought would be helpful to us. Citation overkill. [91]Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Brought valuable information from the Reliable Source Notice board:
An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used
I can see a general issue with independence of the sources. Crisis Magazine is a Catholic publication, so should be attributed due to this COI. The Spectator article discussed on the talk page seems OK to use, though the author Simon Caldwell has worked for the Catholic church so should also be attributed: [58]. On the books/journal, Laurentin is a supporter of the Marian visions and Perić and Kutleša are local Catholic bishops, so are not independent and need attributing. Irish Times is fine. Fences&Windows 11:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life.Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussions as of 3/14/21

@Slp1:First I need to say how grateful I am that you stepped in to help the Our Lady of Medjugorje page. Your expertise is very valuable - to a high degree! I have been learning a good amount and would love it to continue. It has been a month now since, you, Slp1 kindly posted your draft for the Our Lady of Medjugorje page. I responded right away did what I thought you wanted. I have refrained from editing on the page and have been waiting for your response for a month now. Please correct me when I am in error and know that my intention is of the highest, I, like everyone else, am not perfect. May we communicate about your thoughts for the future? Please stay on the page! I don't think it is good for Wikipedia or the readers to leave the Our Lady of Medjugorje page the way it is. Any thoughts of how to move forward? Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Edited Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Timeline seems off

The article currently says:

Fr. Ivan Prusina and Fr. Ivica Vego appealed to the Franciscan Order and the Congregation for Clergy, who declined their appeal considering the decisions to be final. However, the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial court of the Holy See, on 27 March 1993 concluded that they had a right on appeal and saw this as a violation of the procedure and declared the dismissal to be null and void; the same followed for Fr. Ivica Vego as well. The Franciscan Province of Herzegovina tried to present this as a sign of victory against the bishop, however, the bishop's revocation of Fr. Ivan Prusina's priestly jurisdiction remained in force, and the Apostolic Signature never reviewed the matter itself, only the procedural defects. However, only later it became known that Fr. Ivica Vego had made a nun Leopolda pregnant, whom he eventually married and lives with her near Medjugorje.

but the timeline on this seems confused. The source for Vego leaving to eventually marry a nun he had gotten pregnant is dated 1990. So how can this have "only later it became known" from a 1993 order? It would seem by time dismissal was overturned, it was perhaps not so important for Vego as he had already ended any hope of remaining a Catholic priest by getting a nun pregnant and then leaving to settle down with her. Also I wonder if we need to much detail here. While I appreciate the alleged apparitions are said to have continued and the later ones were dismissed by Catholic church investigations in part because they are claimed to have been influenced by supports for the Franciscans, this stuff seems a bite more detailed than is necessary to understand the background IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Too much detail, on top of other things. There is a plan to clean up the article so hopefully we will get to this soon. --Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Draft of article

So, after much delays, I have finished a very rough draft of the article and you can find it here. User:Slp1/sandbox. My apologies for the slowness. I have cut a lot of the material that was poorly sourced. I am sorry about that because somebody put a lot of work into it, but in any case it really was in way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, what is obvious is how much important information is meeting or totally unclear. For example

• the political background
• the events after the first few days
• how the apparitions occured after the first ones
• the conflict between the local church factions is very unclear
• the scientific 'tests' given
• the business of the 10 secrets ..
• the later involvement and actions of the children
• and there is way, way more, as this is based on a very cursory reading of some reliable sources

I would like to have your first opinions of what you see. My suggestion is that after a small clean up, we move the new article into main space and then start working section by section to check sources, add new information etc etc. But Iam open to other ideas. --Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you are doing. It seems much better and a good place to start. May I edit some of it or would you rather I bring my suggestions here first? I hear we are not adding at this time just cleaning up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable placing this rough draft live until we are finished cleaning up, organizing and everything is in its place. Perhaps down the road add more information before posting? It is just a thought. Here are a few things I see:

• the visionaries are one child and 5 teenagers. What word can we use that applies to all 6? The definition at the border - Under U.S. law, unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are defined as migrants under eighteen years old. Another definition: Merriam - a person not yet of the age of majority[92] - majority =the age at which full civil rights are accorded - The age of majority in the U.S. is 18. [93] I have noticed that most references refer to them as children. I vote for children.

• The lead paragraphs need to include what they went through in the beginning: adversaries, supporters, confusion, political environment (arrested by local authorities), examinations and a sentence of the status but the details need to be in the body including Pope Francis. The intro will become clear when the rest is written up.

• The paragraph in the Political situation (1) one of my references said it was August 1941 (2) in order to say it is precisely on the opposite side of the mountain it would have to be proven. This reference is more realistic about that [94] If this is included it just needs to be part of paragraph illustrating the History that contributes to the present situation.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

These citations are not on our good to excellent list and need to be vetted-

• # 3 Vatican news
• # 5 "Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division" - this one seems ok
• # 6 has the name Herrero but it doesn't go to anything.
• # 9 The Irish Times
• # 10 just the name Apolito but provide more information
• # 17 Primary Source Cbismo.com - a catholic diocese and I found nothing about Medjugorje on this website or any news for that matter.
• # 23 Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures.
• # 24 The hidden side of Medjugorje : a new look at the "apparitions" of the Virgin Mary in Yugoslavia
• # 25 DELETEand place citation needed - it is on our unreliable list - Politicizing the Virgin Mary: The Instance of the Madonna of Medjugorje". Csicop.org.
• # 26 "Authorities seize 'corrupt' Bosnian bank", The Guardian, April 6, 2001
• # 27 Grandits, Hannes. "The Power of “Armchair” Politicians: Ethnic Loyalty and Political Factionalism among Herzegovinian Croats", The New Bosnian Mosaic.
• # 29 Not Sure Bosnia: Medjugorje Priest Defrocked". Balkan Insight. Been in business sense Been in business since 2004. Seems like a respectable team [95] I tried to read an article but was asked to subscribe.
• # 34 "Commission to submit study on Medjugorje". News.va.
• # 36 OK for In some situations KAI or eKAI - It seems to be okay for the position of the Catholic Church about certain matters --Slp1
• # 38 Nacional (in Croatian).
• # 41 click on this to website and you have to sign up to read the article and is America.com Pope Francis authorizes the organization of pilgrimages to Medjugorje", America, May 12, 2019
• # 43 ADD link clicked on link and it went to America but not to article of Wooden, Cindy. CNS, May 18, 2017 - here is the actual link. [96]

Just a beginning but again thank you for clearing out unnecessary things. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Still here and will be here until this page is completed. Slp1, I replied and commented as per your request, please give me the courtesy of a response. Your wisdom and knowledge benefits this page. I notice that Governor Sheng is not responding either. It has been two weeks now. How long do we wait before moving forward? What are the Wikipedia guidelines about that?Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. As mentioned on my talkpage, I am rather discouraged and overwhelmed by the amount of work that this article will require, especially with the absence of the GovernorSheng. But I guess we have to start sometime. This evening (my time) I will start the process. I think the best thing to do will be to do a few sections at a time. That way we can focus our efforts on writing and sourcing a small section at a time.Slp1 (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I have been working hard on the pages associated with Medjugorje involving a lot of research. So I already have a good deal of information to contribute. Yes I agree we can work on sections at a time and make them whole and then move onto the next one. I will follow your lead. It will surely take some time and will be worth it! I am in for the long haul.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

start of clean up

Hi all. I have started the clean up based on a draft in my user space. The first section that we will deal with is the political and religious background to the apparitions. Let's start in this section to search for excellent sources so that we can make this a comprehensive, policy-based, NPOV intro to what happened. There is quite a lot to say from what I can see. Please use only the best and highest quality sources (as discussed above). This will be good practice for more controversial sections to come.--Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I have looked it over and will begin researching. Also I would like to clean up the reference formatting to how the page was originally. I find to have the full reference there when you hover over the number the most efficient and clear way. I would like to eliminate the middle step. Is that ok with you? Most of them are this way already.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer to be able to cover over the number. Page numbers need to be given for books, of course, and it is really helpful if googlebook links can be provided so that it is super easy to check if sources have been used correctly. Slp1 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

please explain "to cover over the number". Also are we all agreed to format the references the way the page was originally done. For the reader it is much easier to just hover over the number and see the whole reference right there and to also see them listed in number order on the page. I would be happy to correct it all on the page as I can.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. typo... cover-> hover. Great if you can fix up the references, thanks. As I said, I think including a link to the page in googlebooks is a really good practice too. --Slp1 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

How about we add google links to all sources used once we finish the article? --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see you did comment. I missed it. I think it is important to have the links now, so that we can easily verify the changes being made as we go along. Slp1 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@GovernorSheng:. It is good to see you back!! I see that you have deleted some material and added others. re your deletions, I agree about the sourcing questions but you have made the Initial Events section unreadable because important info is now missing. It would be better to just put citation needed rather than delete what is uncontroversial, easily sourceable material. Your addition was excellent, but it would be helpful to me if you could limit additions until we get to work on that section. If you add too many too early, it will complicate my life a bit. Just a request. Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I've reverted those two of my edits. Agreed on the rest. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Slp1 (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ref style

Now I know the last thing we need right now is another discussion. But I think that we should use sfn templates, because they take less space, and it's easier to navigate through the article while editing. Using ref arrows, or whatever you call it, just makes it less readable in edit mode. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

We had a bit of a discussion about this above, though I don't think you joined in. I realize that everybody has their preferences, and overall I really don't care much, but I do think the most important thing in a contentious article like this is to have direct links to the correct page of the book/citation on googlebooks etc.(where available obviously). As far as I can see, this is not possible with sfn templates. Also, I don't think use of space or how easy it is for editing is a major issue: we need to think more about our readers and help them to gain access to the information they want. I also don't think it is a good idea to change the reference style at present. Them's my thoughts!!! --Slp1 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I had a concern about putting google links throughout out the references. To me that is promoting a business - Google. They sell the books we will be referring people to. I don't think Wikipedia likes us to promote a business. It is the same as providing a link to Amazon. Also I have been told before not to create external links outside wikipedia in general. what do you think? Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem using google books and we are encouraged to add these kinds of external links because they help with sourcing. See WP:GBOOKS. There is even a citation tool to help us [97]. Just so you know: Google does not sell books. Slp1 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know that! Thanks :) Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I added the link to the Maunder book in the list of books and not in the body of the page. What do you all think? It will make editing less complicated and still provide the link.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Now I just added the google link to Maunder on the main page area. He is reference #7. I have to agree, I like it in the main area. And with this type of ref style it is only placed in the first one but it can be seen when you hover over each #7. We could keep them in both places. Your thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Background Section

I suggest that we separate discussions into different talkpage discussions: Thanks, RedRose 13 for your edits. Because we are getting used to rewriting the article, I am going to be very clear here about edits I see.

The first sentence of this edit is great [98]. A good source and a good summary of the text etc.

The second sentence "He was popular among the citizens in the country as can be seen by the results of a poll which showed "81% of Serbs believed that life was better under Tito", not so much. There is a problem with verifiability and original research. There is a problem with assuming Tito was popular at the time from a poll taken 30 years later. comparing the current situation with the past.WP:V And it is original research because a WP editor is making the link between Tito's popularity and what happened in Medjugorje.

The third sentence contains a long unattributed quote " addition, Yugoslavia was in the "midst of a deep social and economic crisis and growing ethnic tensions in the country."" This would be much better written in your own words, or, if necessary "According to x,..... ". But the sourcing etc is good.

Slp1 thanks for explaining it all. Very helpful! Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I will give it a go to clean up this section. I think Maunder has a lot to say about this, so this would be a very good source too. --Slp1 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the second sentence about Tito is really unnecessary. Though he might be popular, he was dead by now. Instead, we should focus on the political dynamics after his death in 1980. And this is where tensions begin. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, GovernorSheng, we seem to have been editing at the same time so now we have material that is a bit repetitious!!! I will leave you to it for a while, but will a few general comments. This section needs to a short summary of the political background, to give readers an overall picture of what was going on. I don't think we need too many details. (for example the exact amount of debt does not need to be stated: it is enough to say that they were in dire economic times). The other is a request: Belaj is a reliable source, and you can for sure use it, but if you can it would be better to use English sources. It is just easier for verifiability purposes. I think there are enough good English sources for these brief sections, though that will probably not be true later. Slp1 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I am also going to delete the bit about the Prebilovci massacre. I think you guys had agreed to do this earlier. Looking at the source again, I agree with you. It might be relevant for a section explaining theories about 'why' they happened 'where' they did, but it is a bit out of place (and speculative) here. Slp1 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to find an English-language replacement for Belaj for this section. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Prebilovci, I think this paragraph should be placed under the section "Religious background", as there were many reactions from the Serb Orthodox clergy on the apparent Marian apparitions in Medjugorje, and many reactions were connected to the Prebilovci massacre. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in that context it might be good to include it there. But let's wait till we get there. That's not the context of Herrero I don't think, so we would need to find other sources. Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree regarding the Prebilovci massacre. It is out of place here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I fixed the references in the Political section. Please notice the formatting and use as we move along. I didn't fix Belaj yet because I am not sure if we are going to use that reference or not.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Fixed Belaj reference today.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we now finished with this section or should we uncover more sources? Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

For sure the religious section needs fixing up. There are citation needed tags. But maybe you were talking about the political part? Slp1 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

are you going to clean out the religious section? I can begin looking for references? Are we going to begin on the situation that it was in 1981 to start? Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I had already cleaned out the obvious stuff when I posted it here. I added citation needed tags to replace bad sources but where the info seemed important and not controversial. I encourage everybody to edit these sections. Instead of just finding citations, the thing to do look at what the best sources say about the background and make sure that we are briefly summarizing these. I certainly don’t want to be the one doing this process for the whole article! Slp1 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am finding some information in The Miracle Detective regarding the religious section. It is just beginning and it seems complicated. I also notice a Wiki link at the top of the section [[99]] to the Herzegovina Affair. That page has 90% croatian references so it seems we need to include this page in our process. Please take note.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I know very little about the religious background of Medjugorje. Governor Sheng it seems you know a lot about it. I noticed that you created the Herzegovina Affair Wikipedia page. Are you planning on helping with this section? We will need to find references in English for this page and the Herzegovina Affair page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on holdays. Happy Easter y'all (if you observe it). Of course. Maunder and Margry wrote extensively about it. I'll refer to them mostly. Regarding Herzegovina Affair... It's not very much discussed in Western academia as it is in the domestic one. Other parts of the World don't even care. I'll see what I can do here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding information. Now is a good time for Slp1's guidance regarding keeping the page concise. For me as a reader the information you posted from Margry was way too much / too long. Maybe one small paragraph would be enough and also it doesn't need its own title. I tried to view the source but you forgot to include it.@Slp1: Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree about the lenght. That's why I stopped expanding this section. I'll expand it some more, then we can agree on a summary. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Any proposals were to write about Vego's and Prusina's case? It's an important event in the history of Medjugorje phenomenon and deserves a special treatment. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

This subject does not belong in the Religious Background area and neither does your Deviant post. We are beginning with the background before 1981 and up until the visions began to give the reader a sense of it. We also need to give both sides of the H Affair. I think we should be doing this in a sandbox area not on a live page @Slp1: Slp1 what do you think? I don't think it is good for wikipedia for all this changing on a live page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, keeping a balance doesn't serve the truth. Like I tried to demonstrate to you many times, it's like trying to add Holocaust deniers as refs on the articles about Holocaust just to keep up the balance for the Nazis since they look bad. The authors used are neutral and credible. They are foreigners not involved in the issue in any way. The argument the Franciscans have is they've been there for 100s of years and people love them, and the Church doesn't get it. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I will bring the balance. There are ALWAYS two sides to a story. Wikipedia wants the whole story not just a one-sided view.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1: I am requesting that we move this editing to a sandbox. It is not good for a page on Wikipedia to be changing so much. What do you think?

I'm not worried, it's just that Wikipedia is not an interview between the two sides. It's not a football match. There may be many sides to a story, but we should present only one - the correct side of the story. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Red Rose, I noticed that you deleted referenced material from the article, claiming it to be a "controversial opinion". Please, elaborate on that here, instead of just deleting what you don't like or disagree with. Explain why Margry's writings about Marian networks do not belong in the religious background? --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your Deviant post of 4 paragraphs had nothing to do with the background in Medjugorje just before the visions began in 1981. We are in the process of showing the reader what it was like in Medjugorje at the time of the apparitions. I also said that in my comments when deleting it. Someone's sociological opinions about Marian apparitions doesn't belong here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree with that. Marian networks were established well before Medjugorje, and Medjugorje became part of that same network. It belongs to the category of contested and controversial apparition sites, along with Amsterdam, and other similar sites in Italy. Many authors point this out, Margry and Maunder being some of them. Maunder writes:

It seemed that the collective unconscious was stirring in terms of academic studies on Catholic apparitions; since then, there have been several detailed academic studies on particular modern visions by scholars such as David Blackbourn, William Christian, Paolo Apolito, Ruth Harris, Eugene Hynes, and Jeffrey Bennett, and articles by researchers Peter Margry and Tine van Osselaer from the Netherlands and Belgium, respectively.

Margry is an established, credible, and reputable author on the subject. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)1980s.

For me we still haven't written a general summary up to the point of when the visions began in 1981 to set up the background. What you are talking about is not background. Also your deviant post of 4 paragraphs does not fit this section either. Maybe one or two sentences. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sullivan cannot be considered an independent, reliable source. He is biased. I think we cannot use him as a reference any longer. The information he provides is incorrect since Bishop Čule was proclaimed innocent and he was never a Nazi collaborator. He never praised Tito in any way. Doing my research on him and reading tons of books on the subject, I cannot find anything similar. Sullivan is a Medjugorje sympathizer who claims to have been converted there. Thus he isn't neutral. By claiming to be converted there and actively supporting the cause (like for example on the Oprah show), this makes him directly involved and unreliable. His book is never mentioned by anyone as useful material on the subject; it's a personal narrative about his conversion there.

For example, a review from the New York University says:

In the beginning it’s unclear what Sullivan is up to in The Miracle Detective. Is this real investigation? Then, after 120 pages, the author has his first personal encounter with God, which makes it very clear where he’ll be going from there on out. An apologist for the Church, he’s on a mission to convince us of the reality of these miracles.

— [100]

--Governor Sheng (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)--Governor Sheng (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1: It seems it is impossible to edit this page without you. I just spent hours searching and writing up new information in the religious section only to be reverted. I plan to put it back in with hope that you clean up the section and use what you need. I also took out things that Governor Sheng put there because it was in the wrong section. It is my understanding that the Background area only has to do with history before 1981 as it relates to religion and Medjugorje. From now on I think you should be the one who removes and edits our edits.Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with your last proposal. We should write our insertions here and agee upon them. When we do so, they should be incorporated into the article. Sullivan's writing on the period of World War II is revisionist. Stating that Partisans did more damage than Ustaše or saying that the population was "liberated" (by using quotation marks) is a textbook example of historical revisionism. As stated above, he's a partisan (in the biased sense) who wrote a book, not for scientific purposes, but to narrate his own personal conversion. This is all good and well, but cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia. His book has no scientific value, it received bad reviews in that sense. I can accept it as a story of personal conversion, and it can be used as a reference on the article about the author or some basic facts like birthdays, or similar, but not for any claims. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In regards to Sullivan here is another review: Publishers Weekly [[101]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a peer review, thus it's irrelevant. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion as of 4/10/21

Question for @Slp1: - Does Wikipedia allow a reference to be a footnote from a book? I would assume not but the editor could go to the footnote source and present that as a reference correct? Here is the footnote which is completely out of context.[[102]] from this book [[103]] Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Then why talk about a footnote out of the context? What's the context? Do you plan to use it in this article? --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I can post it on Hnilica's talk page but I am also concerned that you will try to use it on the Our Lady of Medjugorje page. I intend to follow the Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my ability and I am always learning new things.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Also I don't think a two sentence, out of context footnote should be used to create a controversial sentence. "Hnilica was a center of the contested network of Marian apparition movements." [[104]] 3rd paragraph down from Biography. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's very commendable that you want to follow WP's guidelines. Still, I'm not sure how the footnote is out of context. If a book talks about Marian movements, and about Fr. Sigl, and then the authors adds a footnote about who Sigl is and to whom he was connected to... then, the footnote cannot be "out of context". That's why I'm asking you, what do you see as a context here? Also, don't worry about me using that source. I can use Margry and Maunder which describe Medjugorje as contested and controversial, and a number of other authors. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok then please take it off the Hnilica Page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for that. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will wait for Slp1. Out of context means in this instance that a source is given but only a short sentence or two from the sources book is posted. To get the whole picture one needs to read the whole section from the book and that is why I suggest you go to the source and use that as your reference as long as it is an excellent source. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In regards to your Croatian reference Belaj, I went to page 90 copied and pasted it in Google Translate. I see nothing about an airlines and that is why I put citation needed. I also put citation needed on two of your other sentences not covered by this reference. I am a busy person and I don't have time to check all of your edits and your Croatian references using google translate. Then I fix it on wikipedia with a citation needed and you revert it, telling me to look better. Well here it is for us all to look at- page 90: On April 3, 1982, they transmitted Our Lady's messages according to which the Medjugorje phenomenon included the so-called Herzegovinian case (Fr. to the lower in the text), Bishop Žanić clearly and openly took negative attitude towards apparitions in Medjugorje. Years In 1984, Bishop Žanić stated, among other things: “I can’t get over all these… deceptions, I think. All these announcements, in my opinion, are according to Fr. Vlašić. He knows what tell the world. (…) I am waiting for the grace or sign of Our Lady how I would believe. In this way, I cannot believe ”(cf. video in Corvaglia 2012a). Marco Corvaglia, professor of humanities, who after many years research of the Medjugorje phenomenon in 2007 published the book Medjugorje: è tutto falso (“Medjugorje: everything is a lie ”), and the Episcopal Ordinariate of Mostar, which relies on it, they also confirm how violent the communist government was in the fight against the events in Medjugorje, but only in the beginning. They state that they gave in due to the severe economic crisis in the country with pressures for the benefit of the money of Medjugorje visitors (Corvaglia 2012a; “Bishop Žanić in‘ The Mystery of Medjugorje ’” 2011: 344). Tomislav Vlašić, protagonist of Medjugorje events, whom Bishop Žanić suspected of the authorship of Our Lady message and who in 2009 was suspended from the Franciscan order and Pope Benedict XVI relieved him of all priesthood duties and reduced to the status of a layman, he considered that the government in 1982, sometime after the first anniversary of the apparition, she became convinced how gatherings of believers in Medjugorje are not of a political nature and in in the winter of 1983 began to promote religious tourism and, in there purpose, the rapid construction of houses in Medjugorje, began to be “used the advantages of Our Lady's apparitions and the gathering of people to improved her own interests and materially enriched herself ”(Vlasic according to Corvaglia 2012a). Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And look the next paragraph now. :) It's on the same page.. You're right. It's pp. 90-91, not just p. 90. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I am looking at your reference - Greer, Joanne Marie; Moberg, David O. (2001). Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion. 10. and on wikipedia you say it is on page 143. Amazon doesn't have it, Google doesn't offer page 143 for viewing. Please scan the page 143 from your source and upload it here. Thank you Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You mistakenly put down two different references for the same thing. Just use it once. One time using Herrero and the other one Greer - Herrero, Juan A. (1999). "Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division". In Joanne M. Greer, David O. Moberg (ed.). Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion - page 143. Please provide the scan. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Again I find that you posted the same reference twice above, next to each other.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This croatian reference says page 124 - I found it on google and googled the bishops name you used in the sentence and nothing came up. Please find page 124 in this reference, put the link here and translate it here. Pandžić, Bazilije (2001). Hercegovački franjevci – sedam stoljeća s narodom.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Another croatian reference with no link to the document. Please provide the link - Život i rad mostarsko-duvanjskih i trebinjsko-mrkanskih biskupa u zadnjih 100 godina" by Peric and . Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

the Margry reference - some of the words match what is in his book and some not so much. Because this is a controversial page, I think it is best to be exact with your references and the words on the page. Also I am not able to access page 669-671 and page 139 does not match the words at all. Also I don't think this post belongs in this section and a small paragraph along with his definition of Deviant could be put somewhere in the body of page when we get there.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't be scanning book pages because I don't want to violate any copyright laws. Buy the book if you want to. I can provide you the link for Pandžić's book - [105]. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you but I found the reference but when I searched the document with the bishops name you used in the sentence nothing came up. Please provide a link to the page number you used.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what are you talking about. There's no link. I have a hard copy. Try buying the book and reading the page you're interested in. Or just copy the sentence you have a problem with, and I'll try to explain to you where to find this in the book. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is the sentence. "Paškal Buconjić, who was a Franciscan himself, served as the first bishop of Mostar-Duvno, and the Franciscans were assured that he wouldn't disturb their possessions." Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not you have the access to the book. The page in question is 123. It states: "Since the Bishop im Mostar was a Franciscan, friar Paškal Buconjić, they [the Franciscans] had trust in him and they knew that, if there would be an issue with the parishes, they will resolve it brotherly and in agreement" (Budući da je u Mostaru bio biskup franjevac, fra Paškal Buconjić, imali su povjerenje u nj i znali su, ako bi se radilo o župama, da će ga bratski i dogovoreno rješavati). Also, see p. 127. "Bishop Buconjić doesn't intend to encroach the Franciscan parishes beacuse of justice" ("Biskup Buconjić ne namjerava dirati u franjevačke župe zbog pravednosti") --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you I wasn't able to pull up p 123 or 127 from google. I would like to change the sentence to read: "Paškal Buconjić, who was a Franciscan himself, served as the first bishop of Mostar-Duvno. The Franciscans trusted him and were assured that he would not disturb the Franciscan parishes."

Yeah. Sounds good. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Governor Sheng have you taken care of the other reference problems I discovered and listed above?Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

What are the problems with references? --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It is all listed in this thread.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all is good. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the duplicate sources. Next we need to look at the Margry source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)