Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 7

This 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch [[2]]

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion

As an editor you might consider studying this page. There is a section regarding the word cult, allegedly etc... The current issue is the word 'however' - [[3]] I took out the word however in two sentences. The other thing I did was use the actual word from the source.
My edit: The trial was over that very day, and the sentence was pronounced the day after on October 22, 1981
Your reversion: However, the trial was over that very day, and the sentence was published the day after.
(1) You can see I removed the word however according to Wiki guidelines. (2) And replaced the word published with the word from source - pronounced. It couldn't have been published yet because it was just pronounced (3) I added the actual date. How in the world is this fitting any narrative?Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. However, the word "however" how I use it in the article is actually supported by the source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: Please provide a link to the source, so I can read the section as well. thanks The however doesn't make any sense.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Bringing the discussion here. We need the link to the article and since it is your reference, it is up to you to provide it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've forgot the link. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to play today. We as a reader or editor need to be able to verify everything on Wikipedia. If you cannot provide a link then we use the second reference. The second reference does not use the word however. Btw explain how the word 'however' is used here. It makes no sense structurally. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You can verify what's written. Contact the diocese and ask them for a copy or a confirmation at least. But I don't need to give you a link of any sort. You can forget about that. The word however is used as follows: "Prema dječjem "ukazanju" suđenje se fra Jozi "nastavlja" - međutim, presuda je bila već sutradan, 22. listopada 1981." --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Tags continued

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments3 people in discussion

The tags on this page were put there by Governor Sheng:

(1) This article may contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of unnoteworthy facts. (March 2022)
(2) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (March 2022)

and Manannan67:

(1) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2021)
(2)This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (October 2021)
(3) This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (December 2021)
(4) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (December 2021)

Governor Sheng. I noticed you didn't respond to my objections above in the Tag discussion. Also your list of what you call the reasons for the tags, is just a list of the tags. Also remember I am not the only editor on this page. These tags apply to you, Mannanan67 as well. Here is what you repeated: "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia - same as above. This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. - same as above. This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay - same as above." So I moved the tags to the talk page until the persons, you and Mannanan67 who placed them there, explains in detail, fixes what he is referring to or supports others to fix the problems. I can just delete them.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

He doesn't need to explain them, I re-added them and explained them. Until we have an agreement the issues are resolved, the disputes are obviously there. They exst. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You added two tags and Manannan67 added the others. They apply to your editing, my editing, Manannan67's editing (I have already corrected a couple of his and your problems which can be see in the editing comments) and all the editors who created this page. I don't feel a need to correct anything but am open to working with you and Manannan67 as long as you both can see your mistakes as well. To be fair not all the corrections have anything to do with either of us but we can correct the errors for the good of the page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Provide a link to where you specifically explained all of the tags and where the problem is in the article. We made some movement but there is more that needs to be removed from this page specifically quotes from the primary source, Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian), self-published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated as Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines in regards to tagging:

(1) [[4]] "In regards to adding tags to an article. Editors are asked to explain each tag they have added to an article and exactly what needs to be corrected on the Talk Page. You can read about this on the Responsible Tagging page here. "If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you." (2) From the responsible tagging guidelines here [[5]] "If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you." And..."the identification and labeling step is often botched, resulting at best in a long delay until the problem is fixed, and at worst in an edit war in which several people revert the tagger, who refuses to explain the reason for the tag."

It is rather bizarre to find someone requesting an explanation for a tag, after I spent weeks debating what was wrong with the article. So as not to repeat myself, I checked the archive. "While you are apparently focused on substantiating the alleged "apparitions" you loose sight of the fact that Medjugorje is a stew of complicated history, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, anti-communism, Croat nationalism, ecclesiastical discipline, Vatican diplomacy, and money; lots and lots of money."... Then I came upon Slp1's tutorial. That alone should have provided a clue. Third-party hearsay endorsements that cannot be confirmed. Political aspects virtually ignored. Any critical info is reverted. Third-rate sources supporting a lot of fan cruft. I could on but, I've been around on this before and it's a waste of time. The page promotes an uncritical view of the alleged "apparitions" while ignoring the underlying causes and ramifications present at Medjugore but less in evidence at other sites. Manannan67 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps if you took time to study the wikipedia guidelines on tags, you would understand. When you place a tag, you share your views about specific edits with the intent on working together to correct the errors. Then the tag is removed. This hasn't happened. Also, this page is not just about me which you seem to think. I did not create this page, only came here to improve the page. I went through a number of your edits and sources and found that some would either distort and/or leave out critical information from your source. I made note of it on the talk page. I fixed them and then you say I am promoting the apparitions when in reality I am correcting your distortions. Some of what you edited improved the page as well. Also, if an editor is using a primary source for controversial postings, then it needs to be removed according to Wiki guidelines. This page has at least 7 living persons. Yes Slp1 helped me correct some of my errors and I am thankful. I am open to corrections and am always learning new things. Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should focus your efforts on a topic with which you are more familiar. Manannan67 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you but I think you are speaking to yourself.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed a few months ago when I was on your page I looked at your number of edits because I was not convinced that you are a Master Editor. I noticed your number of edits is 9,503 as of today. That would make you a Veteran Editor [[6]]. I see that a Master Editor needs to have 42,000 edits. I am requesting that you fix that. I brought it up here instead of your talk page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

He can put what he likes on his userpage. Leave that out. Why do we have a discussion about this? --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I brought it up here instead of his personal talk page because it is a sensitive subject. I am trying to avoid bringing it up on his talk page. It's like "false advertising" and other editors are fooled as well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Why on Earth is that a sensitive subject? Let's not waste time on personal user pages. In my 4 years editing here, this is the first time someone brought that up unironically. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing for 10 years and this is the first time I have seen an editor falsely claim on their page their editing status. If it is not corrected, I will be forced to post it publicly on his talk page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That's on top of over 33K edits under a previous incarnation. But humping to conclusions, and introducing irrelevant material is typical of your style of edits. One would think someone who claims to have edited for ten years to be somewhat more aware. However, judging by the clueless conversations archived I rather doubt it. Posting stuff about which you know nothing explains a lot of the tags on this article. Manannan67 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So all you can do is put down other people rather than collaborate in harmony with others and work as a team to make Wikipedia better? Your choice. The tags will just sit there. I really encourage you to read about the guidelines when leaving tags. It is not recommend to tag bomb with no explanation in detail and no follow-up. It is in your lap. I have cleaned up a lot of distortions already. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not recommended to make false accusations about people. Manannan67 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Be mindful of your false accusations written above. Plain as day. Doesn't create a harmonious, respectful interaction or collaboration.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Initial Events edits

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Governor Sheng: All I can say is that you made the section a horrible, out of sequence mess and on top of that you added a huge amount of primary sources with controversial statements. Lol... I didn't know you could make such a mess. It is a jumble of heresay and gossip using references of bishops and others who are primarily involved. I thought you knew how to write a neutral, fact based encyclopedic page. Wow! I was mistaken. LOL! Also your reference is not working.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, glad to know you trusted my neutral, fact-based encyclopedic editing so far. I was unaware of that. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If you believe that, then are mistaken. Never make assumptions. The Medjugorje related pages are filled with this jumbled mess. Some of the other pages you create or edit, you seem to understand the need for secondary reliable sources rather than primary sources. But not here. Why is that? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What? Governor Sheng (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Governor Sheng and edit warring

Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments2 people in discussion

Here you go again. Posting controversial postings using PRIMARY SOURCES which is never allowed and I am sure you know this. I refuse to edit war with you but I also will not allow you to pollute any wikipedia page using primary sources for controversial subjects. Bring the discussion here and revert your own edits until we are finished.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who added the quote from Laurentin? Was it I? Primary sources can be reliable. Bulat is a serious scholar. I ain't reverting shit. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We have already discussed Bulat in past discussion. I am working at my real job right now but when I have time I will delve into the archives and bring you the proof. Peric obviously is a primary source and cannot be allowed to be used for controversy. You know this, we have discussed this forever and it is bizarre to me that you still DENY it and then ignore the rules.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We are allowed on Wikipedia to use primary sources for facts. What Laurentin wrote was not controversial just facts. Rene Laurentin continued writing that she told them that his "sentence will not be pronounced this evening. Do not be afraid, he will not be condemned to a severe punishment..."^[1] You then took a primary source and inserted controversy... this is the problem.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Bulat from his own little article - "Don Nikola Bulat, priest of the Split-Makarska Archdiocese, was a member of the extended Bishops' Commission for examining events in Medjugorje, 1984-1986. At the suggestion of msgr. Pavle Zanic, Bishop of Diocesan of Mostar (1980- 1993), several Members of the Commission were in charge and drafted a plan for a book on the events of Medjugorje, which was intended to be published by the Bishop's Ordinariate in Mostar." PRIMARY SOURCE!! Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I inserted controversy? Well, the thing Laurentin talks about is obviously controversial. Both are primary sources. So shove it. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng:
(1)I translated page 40, 44 & 85 in Bulats book and no where does it say, "Rene Laurentin, quoting an unauthentic second diary of Vicka that was transcribed from Vlašić's chronicle,[123]" Did you make that up yourself?

(2) I found Međugorske stranputice and translated the page- it does not say "In Vlašić's chronicle, it was written that the apparition told them that the trial will be continued," What it says is: "The children saw fr. Jozo and the courtroom and one main person in the middle (I guess the main judge). Our Lady told them that the trial was not over and that it continues." What this means is that they were shown the trial in process. How in the world did you come up with "the trial will be continued"? This is the distortion that I am continuously finding with your edits. It is very concerning. Btw the words (I guess the main judge) were not mine and were in the text.
I am requesting that you revert your edits.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What can I tell you? Read it again, and again and again until you see it. All is referenced, can't miss it. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I am focusing on the vision itself and what the children said. (1) the children where given a vision on the day of the trial itself, (2) the trial was in process the day of the vision (3) The children witnessed the trial in action in the moment. (4) When Our Lady says that it continues - she is saying that it is not over yet and is still in process. (5) are you referring to Perics mis-interpretation? "According to the children's "apparition", the trial of Fr. Joza "continues" - however, the verdict was the very next day, 22 October 1981." This vision the children received was during the actual trial. Peric misunderstood the word continues to mean it will go on beyond Oct 21st as if the Lady said those words at the end of day or trial. But the truth is, she said that during the process of the trial and was letting the children know that it isn't over yet at the time of their vision. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Whatever. Also, please quote the exact page from Laurentin's book. The quote doesn't stretch over all four pages. Also, if you continue reading Laurentin's book as you quoted it, you'll see there's nothing new here. P.S. The "vision" occurred in the evening, and trust me, the courts work, like, till 4 PM at best, and the trials are in the morning. But interpret it as you wish. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the time mentioned anywhere. It was only two visionaries who saw the vision and they explained what they saw and it was a vision during the trial which we know is during the day. Some trials are finished quickly and some take longer as you well know. The trials may begin in the morning but can last a few hours to weeks. I will write more later. We cannot leave those two sentences there as they are.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Trials are never that long, but whatever. We have the sources, the sources say what they say. Your personal interpretation are your own. I once again ask you to cite Laurentin correctly, meaning the correct page number. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Question During the vision of seeing the court room in process of the trial, how can you leap from:
Our Lady told them that the trial was not over and that it continues. to
In Vlašić's chronicle, it was written that the apparition told them that the trial will be continued.?
(1) Vlasics chronicle was not mentioned anywhere - Original Research
(2) The apparition did not tell them that the trial will be continued. The apparition told them that the trial continues during the vision of the active courtroom.
This is how it should be written: "According to the opinion of Peric, the apparition said that the trial will be continued but from a direct quote from the source, the Gospa told the seers that the trial continues during their vision of the active trial." This allows the reader to decide.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the whole article. All is there. Do you need help with translation? P.S. You're like the embodiment of Original Research. Read what you wrote. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not interested in reading Bishop Perics opinion about anything to do with Medjugorje because he is a primary source who is not neutral and is biased. I would be interested in a reliable secondary source talking about it however. Ok written again. The seers said that during the vision of Jozo while in the active courtroom with one main man in the middle they believe is the judge that Our Lady told them that the trial was not over and that it continues. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, Original Research. If you're uninterested in reading what the source says, I'm even less interested in helping you out. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol... It is not original research - it is exactly what they said. Your sentence is original research and needs to be removed. Like I said if you can find a secondary reliable source that discusses this issue, I would be happen to read it. Also you can't just edit and cause chaos on this page, and not expect me to respond. You cannot hold the page hostage and edit war to keep my edits off the page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, if you need any assistance in translating certain parts of the text, feel free to ask. Otherwise, this is just your own poor conclusion. Which is OR, needles to say. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free if you wish to translate this: Župni je vikar zabilježio u Kroniku i ovu poruku: "Jakov i Vicka kažu da su vidjeli Gospu i fr. Jozu. Fr. Jozo je bio veseo. Vidjela su djeca i sudnicu i jednog glavnog u sredini (valjda glavni sudac). Gospa im je rekla da suđenje nije završeno te da se nastavlja. Također je rekla da ga (fr. Jozu) neće mnogo osuditi i da se za nj ne brinu, jer je on svetac, kao što im je još prije rekla. Također je rekla da fr. Jozo želi da oni ustraju u molitvi."

Here it is translated from the translator you recommended. The vicar of the parish also noted this message in the Chronicle: "James and Vicka say that they have seen Our Lady and Fr.Jozo. Fr. Jozo was cheerful. They saw the children and the courtroom and one head in the middle (I guess the chief justice).Our Lady told them that the trial was not over and that it was continuing. She also said that (fr. Jozu) will not be condemned much and not to worry about him, because he is a saint, as she has told them before.She also said that fr. Jozo wants them to persevere in prayer.
Google translate: The vicar of the parish also noted this message in the Chronicle: "James and Vicka say that they have seen Our Lady and Fr. Jozo. Fr. Jozo was cheerful. They saw the children and the courtroom and one head in the middle (I guess the chief justice). Our Lady told them that the trial was not over and that it was continuing. She also said that (fr. Jozu) will not be condemned much and not to worry about him, because he is a saint, as she has told them before. She also said that fr. Jozo wants them to persevere in prayer.
Bing translate: The vicar of the parish also noted this message in the Chronicle: "James and Vicka say that they have seen Our Lady and Fr. Jozo. Fr. Jozo was cheerful. They saw the children and the courtroom and one head in the middle (I guess the chief justice). Our Lady told them that the trial was not over and that it was continuing. She also said that (fr. Jozu) will not be condemned much and not to worry about him, because he is a saint, as she has told them before. She also said that fr. Jozo wants them to persevere in prayer.
So the words "Our Lady told them the trial was over and that it was continuing." from all three translators says it all. (1) She said the trial was over and (2) it was continuing. Logically the trial was over Oct 21 and it was continuing because of sentencing. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As per this discussion I fixed the edits in the area using direct quotes and an attribution to Peric. I think you will be pleased.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I found a weird error and corrected it. I don't know the language and somehow the n was deleted which changed the outcome. So I fixed it on the page. I corrected it above.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The translation is correct. However, I'm amazed by the years you spent editing here, that you still don't know who the fuck was the "župni vikar" or "chaplain" in Medjugorje... That's why I told you, read the whole article, and you'll get a glimpse that the "chaplain" is freakin Vlašić, the only chaplain who wrote the goddamn chronicle. For fucks sake... This is the hundredth time you waste everyone's time on trivial things. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, keep your own silly conclusions to yourself. This is original research. Also, your interpretation is so senseless I don't have words for it + you wasted my time here for nothing. Congrats. I suppose Maddona appeared during the coffee break in the courtroom. Good to know. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Laurentin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Missing source cite.

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Governor Sheng: You added {{sfn|Niles|2017}} to Our Lady of Medjugorje on 19:11, May 26, 2022. Please add source cite.User-duck (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I know. I'm on to it. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:VAR

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Please stop removing "sfn" and replacing it with "ref" as a way of referencing. The article used the sfn system before your "crusade" to change it all to "ref". So please, just stop. It's time-wasting and pointless. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that both of the recent major contributers to the article are currently blocked for edit warring, so I dropped by to fix the most recent sfn errors. Personally I agree with Governor Sheng that sfns are appropriate for this article since there are several sources that are cited many times. Regardless of which referencing system ends up being employed, those of us who gnome the reference error categories would appreciate some effort being put into avoiding technical errors in the references. I find this script very helpful for highlighting errors in sfns. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the script. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I also "gnome" the reference error (and warning) categories. Personally, I have no problem with mixing SFNs for some sources (especially books) and full cites for others (especially non-authored sources). I changed a reference to one book source to SFN and one web source to <ref>...</ref> to resolve cite errors. User-duck (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you duck for your input. I agree. Governor Sheng, actually the ref way of referencing was originally used on the OLM page and it was you that tried to change it to sfn. I brought that up with Slp1 and you when she was working with us and she agreed to use the ref style because it was much easier for the reader. I noticed you just changed one of mine to your system. I will be fixing that. I think we need to respect each other and allow both ways of doing it on this page. I won't be changing yours, so please don't change mine. I find it much easier when referencing. We need to compromise and work together to avoid edit wars.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, after fucking up the page numbers, I'll fix my refs :) Governor Sheng (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sullivan got it wrong - Zovko was sentenced for verbal delict, not sedition

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments2 people in discussion

So, this is another error made by the author from the title.

Zovko was sentenced under Art. 133 of the Criminal Act of the SFR Yugoslavia.

A famed Herzegovinian lawyer Josip Muselimović (also an academician) writes - Davne 1981. godine na udaru ove zakonske odredbe našao se i fra Jozo Zovko, župnik u župi sv. Jakova u Međugorju. Svjedok dramatičnih događaja oko međugorskog ukazanja Blažene Djevice Marije, svoju nevinost nastojao je dokazati u kaznenom postupku koji je vođen pred Okružnim sudom u Mostaru. Njegov branitelj, zagrebački odvjetnik Milan Vuković, priredio je i objavio knjigu “Član 133 nad Međugorjem”.

This can be translated as follows: "Back in 1981, Friar Jozo Zovko was under attack by this regulation, a parish priest in the Parish of St. Jacob in Medjugorje. A witness of these dramatic events around the apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Medjugorje, he had to prove his innocence in a criminal procedure before the Municipal Court in Mostar. His defence attorney, a lawyer from Zagreb Milan Vuković, edited and published the book "Article 133 over Medjugorje".

(https://hip.ba/2017/09/10/kolumna-josipa-muselimovica-neprijateljska-propaganda/)

Also, Croatian historian Ivo Lučić (in the article "Duvno kao žarište...") writes briefly about Zovko's trial and he mentions that Zovko was sentenced to three and a half years, and his sentence was reduced two times. Him being endangered by the death sentence is just pure bullshit.

The Art. 133 states:

(1) Tko natpisom, letkom, crtežom, govorom ili na drugi način poziva ili potiče na obaranje vlasti radničke klase i radnih ljudi, na protuustavnu promjenu socijalističkog samoupravnog društvenog uređenja, na razbijanje bratstva i jedinstva i ravnopravnosti naroda i narodnosti, na svrgavanje organa društvenog samoupravljanja i vlasti ili njihovih izvršnih organa, na otpor prema odlukama nadležnih organa vlasti i samoupravljanja koje su od značaja za zaštitu i razvoj socijalističkih samoupravnih odnosa, sigurnost i obranu zemlje, ili zlonamjerno i neistinito prikazuje društveno-političke prilike u zemlji, kaznit će se zatvorom od jedne do deset godina.

(2) Tko djelo iz stava 1. ovog člana učini uz pomoć ili pod utjecajem iz inozemstva, kaznit će se zatvorom najmanje od tri godine.

In the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, we see that the proscribed sentence was imprisonment between 1 and 10 years. And Sullivan's idea of the death sentence is just idiotic and silly. A serious scholar would never allow himself to commit such an obvious error.

Now, I'm not gonna use this cited Muselimović's column above nor Lučić's article as references in this article, nor will add anything from it, it just serves to indicate that Sullivan is very much mistaken, and writes nonsense. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this research. It is very helpful. Please provide the link to the Article 133. I would like to read it. Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, there you go - https://www.kurir.rs/vesti/drustvo/3042881/ovo-je-zloglasni-clan-133-zbog-kog-se-islo-na-goli-otok-od-titovih-odredbi-nije-smelo-ni-da-se-pisne-ko-poziva-na-obaranje-vlasti-u-zatvor-i-do-10-godina. Glad to help. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Too blurry and I cannot copy to translator but the words on the page explained it. "this is the famous article 133. criminal code of the SFRY regulating verbal offence. Not to be confused, the 1976 law was passed in 1977. Not from 1945. [Getty) That's when they killed for "crimes under this law"... So it seems they just 4 years prior to Zovko going on trial in 1981, citizens were being killed for this offence. (2) Sedition means "Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state. The definition of sedition includes a verbal offense towards the state.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) You have it in text, the photo you're talking about is blurry and in Cyrillic. Also, I'm not sure about the revisions of the said article. There could have been many more revisions after 1952, but it was in 1952 when a death sentence was proscribed? Whatever the case, Zovko wasn't endangered by the death sentence in any way. Also, nobody was killed for that law. The last death sentence I think was carried out in 1987 (not sure about the circumstances, I think it was because of a murder), but the death sentence was extremely rare. (2) Merriam-Webster says this about sedition: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia - Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. [[7]] So sedition includes a verbal offense (1) the law changed in 1977 four years before Zovko went to trial. True he wasn't in danger of being executed but only by 4 years.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be your Original Research. We don't know that. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't know what?Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't know how many revisions of the said article happened or when the original article was introduced in the legal system. What so far we know is Sullivan is wrong, ie, unusable, at least in this particular case. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So, being interested in the legal history of Yugoslavia, I went to the most recent revisions of the Criminal Act after 1952. The Criminal Act was revised in 1959. In it the Article 133 is completely another criminal act – Mistreatment of the international signs, for which a sentence of imprisonment was proscribed, without mentioning the length of the imprisonment (in the war circumstances, imprisonment would last from six months to five years). The closest criminal act to the Article 133 of 1977 was the Article 118 of 1959, titled "The enemy propaganda", and the perpetrator would risk a sentence of imprisonment up to twelve years. (Ref: Krivični zakonik s objašnjenima, published in Zagreb by Štamparski zavod "Ognjen Prica" in 1961). @Red Rose 13: being an experienced editor as I am, and knowing you as you are, please refrain yourself from adding your own conclusion as valid. This constitutes original research. Thank God with my experience we avoided the catastrophe. But be careful with your conclusions when I'm not around. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you noticed the source I found that backs up that he was convicted of sedition? Here is the link to the source [[8]] Lol Do you have to be so condescending? I am not coming up with my own conclusion (Original Research) as you so accuse but providing two excellent secondary sources that both say he was convicted of sedition. Peric makes up his own version and then you promote it. We just need the facts not original research. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? We were discussing primarily the death sentence, and there's no proof of it whatsoever. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ogledalo pravde

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I present my extensive research on this subject below.
(in Croatian) published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar
This source is not a reliable source and is a POV primary source on a controversial page. Using this as one of the guidelines WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

(1) Not Independent from the subject - Dražen Kutleša is the editor who prepared the book for Bishop Peric who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions.(Also see (2) & (3) about Drazen Kutlesa) Here is the pdf [[9]]
Google translated from title page: MIRROR JUSTICE, Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar, about alleged apparitions and messages, in Medjugorje, Prepared by Don Drazen, Mostar, 2001.

(2) Not the author but the editorDrazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 and the beginning paragraph google translated: "By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."[[10]]

(3) Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric both oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions and had negative WP:POV's on the subject see link [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratko_Peri%C4%87#Medjugorje]] from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. Peric took over from Bishop Pavao Zanic who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from the beginning in 1981 to his retirement in 1993. Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric are not independent but were directly involved in the controversy of Medjugorje and had POV's about the subject.

(4) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314) to this pdf.[[11]]

(5) Self published - the publishing is directly under Bishop Peric's direction. It was published by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar directly under Bishop Peric. "The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno is the head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, who is responsible for looking after its spiritual and administrative needs". List_of_Roman_Catholic_bishops_of_Mostar-Duvno
(5a) This statement in the Preface by Peric "The Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar has been repeatedly public and in writing in relation to the Medjugorje phenomena, starting in August 1981." explains another reason why this is a primary source because the publisher is Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar and has been consistently involved in the OLM apparitions since the beginning. The Ordinariate is not neutral and directly involved which includes the bishops and clerks.

(6) Collection of primary sources WP:PSTS It is a compilation of interviews and statements including from the previous Bishop Zanic. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.See in the pdf on page 3 the list of names [[12]]

(7) This unreliable, primary source is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje and at least three are still living: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.

(8) There are many living persons within this article: The visionaries: Ivan Dragićević, Ivanka Ivanković, Jakov Čolo, Marija Pavlović, Mirjana Dragićević, Vicka Ivanković and Jelena Vasilj. The clergy: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbaric, Tomislav Vlasic, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivica Vego. And etc...

(9) It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje which is a controversial subject.[[13]]

(10) Governor Sheng has already placed Ogledalo pravde on RSN with no response [[14]]

(11) Governor Sheng also placed the reference for this article on the RSN. "An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used. [[15]] The expert editor Slp1 that was working with us on the Our Lady Of Medjugorje page answered the request and here it is: "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 Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Kutlesa was not independent. At the time he organized Ogledalo Pravde for the Bishop, he was working as a clerk at the The Bishop's Episcopal Ordinariate located in Mostar [[16]] which means he was working for and under the instruction of Bishop Ratko Peric. Peric was a prelate of the Catholic Church who served as the bishop of Mostar-Duvno and apostolic administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. [[17]]- From Kutlesa's wikipedia page - "He has mostly worked on his dissertation in Mostar as a clerk at the Episcopal Ordinariate since 1998. and in 2003 he is still in Mostar where "he published in Mostar a part of his thesis in Italian".

Bishop Peric was not independent and was directly involved in the visions of Medjugorje during the time Ogledalo Pravde was organized for him by his clerk, Kutlesa. Even if Peric was a subject matter expert or an expert in the field of Theology, the truth is, he is a person with a "Point of View" regarding the visionaries and is directly involved in the apparitions and the visionaries. Any books about Medjugorje written by him are a primary source. He wrote in this book in the sections Preface and conclusion.

Bishop Zanic was not independent and the Bishop before Peric and was also directly involved in the visions of Medjugorje. The book Ogledalo Pravde is a compilation of statements and events in regards to Medjugore. He also was not a neutral source and any book compiled by him about the visions of Medjugorje is a primary source.

Primary Source - On the title page of Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) it says: "Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje" (easily translated by google translate). This book is being presented by the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar with the clerk Kutlesa doing the compiling and editing for the Bishop Peric of the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar. On page 4 it translates as: BISHOP'S ORDINARY MOSTAR, THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE, Preparation and syllable: Don Drazen Kutlesa

Self-published Publisher is also the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar which is under the Bishop who was Peric at that time. "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." [[18]]

In regards to your concern about translating. I have been using Google Translate or Bing translate to be able to read this pdf. If you want feel free to double check me.

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings [[19]]:
1) The work itself (the article, book)
2) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
3) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
All three can affect reliability.
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [[20]]

In conclusion: Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) is a primary source, self published and "Point of View"
1) The work - Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) - a primary source
2) The creator of the work - Bishop Peric - not independent, Clerk Kutlesa - not independent
3) The publisher - Peric self-published from his own organization

This statement in the Preface by Peric "The Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar has been repeatedly public and in writing in relation to the Medjugorje phenomena, starting in August 1981." explains another reason why this is a primary source because the publisher is Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar and has been consistently involved in the OLM apparitions since the beginning. The Ordinariate is not neutral and directly involved which includes the bishops and clerks. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This was thoroughly discussed previously. You're wrong on all accounts. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL... "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Preach it sista. Is that a quote from Pashamahshamsha Ghandi? Governor Sheng (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What the F?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[21] "In all likelihood, Pope John Paul II did regard Medjugorje with some favour, albeit behind the scenes. Medjugorje was a convenient aid to the Vatican’s foreign policy in the 1980s, i.e. supporting the United States and attempting to undermine the communist bloc in Eastern Europe." - And how the fuck did you manage to make it sound like "John Paul's support for Medjugorje was convenient for US foreign policy", when the author states that his support stemmed from the foreign policy?... Do you distort all sources that way or just this one? --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussions as of 6/16/22

Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments2 people in discussion

Govenor Sheng as I looked through your edits I noticed a number of times you seem to imply in your comments that I deleted page numbers. Lol :) I don't sabotage nor would I leave out page numbers, let's start out with respect and assuming good faith of each other. Also it seems you might not understand how the refs work. All you have to do is hover over the reference and the whole information pops including page number. But in the sfn system the page number is the first you see then you click on it to see the whole reference. It is a two step process rather than one step.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I know how the refs work. I didn't imply anything. Also *someone* mixed up the pages. For example, one ref contains so many page numbers, one cannot tell on which page one can find the information that was referenced. Originally that wasn't so. So, yeah, someone messed up badly. Governor Sheng (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that a number of the references are not presented properly now that you reverted some of the references from ref to sfn. They were all linked to each other. I am requesting that you put them back they way they were. It is a bit of a mess now and from what I have seen it is Maunder references. I'll let you know of any others.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Maunder's sources are a mess, because you put all the page numbers in one ref, so it became impossible to check the source. I'll fix that. Don't worry. Maunder wasn't the only issue, there were many more. At some places you deleted page numbers for example. Shit happens. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually I never deleted any pages numbers and If you are accusing me then you need to provide the link where I did that. I know it doesn't exist. They were all perfectly connected. Just revert your reverting of the refs and it will come back to normal. I would do it but then we would be edit warring again. If you want me to make each reference for one page or pages if necessary, all you have to do is ask. I notice you have added a number of pages to your references as well. Perhaps we can come to agreement to do that. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Weeelll... you have. For example, originally I used sfn for Belaj, then you changed it to "ref", and in the process, you deleted the page numbers. Also, since you put all the page numbers from Maunder's book into one ref, it was impossible to check to which page number the info is connected to, so I need to fix this. It takes time. You made a mess, it happens. But I will sort it out. Example. Maybe it wasn't you. Who knows... Maybe you would fix the mess you made if you weren't busy calling me out to fix the shit on the article I made ONE edit and doing the same on several other articles for God knows what reason... --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In your little example It shows what I wrote there and added the reference myself, separate from any of your references. You are causing a problem by changing it. Stop it! I will be changing it back. Leave my references alone.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In my little example (which used to be sfn), I referred to the page n. 161, then u used "ref" style and created an orphan with pages 160, 162-167, omitting the page 161. And then u used that shortened ref on so many instances, that one couldn't simply know which page refers to which information. So yeah, like I said, you fucked up (Plus, you don't even have the access to Maunder's book I think, but whatever). Also, what about my second little example? Governor Sheng (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that you might not realize that every ref style that has a ref name can be shortened for the other areas it is used. Example <ref name= Whatever/ > this is the short version that you use once the original one is put in. It is linked to the original long reference and when a person deletes any part it doesn't work and that is why it is a mess. That is also why the editors are constantly over here correcting the orphans. When you revert things including the reference, it creates orphans.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I know that. But thank you. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you placed a citation needed next to all the Sullivan posts which clutters the page. I only placed citation needed when it was a controversial post because the source you use is a primary source. But if the post is not controversial, I didn't place a citation needed next to it. Because as you know we can use primary sources for basic facts. As you know I have repeated soooooooooo many times, that a reliable source doesn't have to be scholarly. I have given you soooooo many wiki guidelines regarding this. All you have to do is read it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. However, a biased and a non-scholarly source is another level. (See: WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.") Also, non of the sources you claim to be primary sources are actually primary sources. If you'll notice, the books you're referring to as primary, actually themselves used the primary sources, therefore they are by definition secondary sources. Also, primary sources are always those written not long after the event has occurred, as said in WP:Primary, and here that's not the case. Sullivan proved to be wrong on so many issues, and can hardly be reliable. For some basic facts like dates and names, yeah, but to use him on so many occasions, that will not work. --Governor Sheng (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

We have discussed this so many times and I have spent hours providing links to the guidelines already. I know what a primary source is and Ogledalo pravde is that, along with its editor Kutlesa who worked for Peric. Anything that Peric, Zanic, Bulat write about Medjugorje is a primary source. Sometimes they give their opinions which is biased or they try to understand what Gospa says but miss the mark many times and are wrong. These primary sources should really not be used at all. This is why we need a secondary source when the topic is controversial. I know you don't like Sullivan but that is no reason to exclude his work from this page or others. I don't know of any source that at times has an error or two. When we find the error like Peric's interpretation of Gospa's words or Sullivans error regarding the death penalty, we correct it. As you know most humans make errors.Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if it would be a primary source because of Perić's involvement, it cannot be considered a primary source when he would talk about the events prior to his ascendance to the episcopacy in 1993. Regarding Kutleša, he cannot be considered a primary source in any way. Wikipedia explains this nicely in the article Primary source: "For example, a memoir would be considered a primary source in research concerning its author or about their friends characterized within it, but the same memoir would be a secondary source if it were used to examine the culture in which its author lived." Now, you may feel that because you repeat yourself so many times that you're somehow right, but you're not. But I give you a chance to explain your position - how were Kutleša or Perić directly involved in the Medjugorje phenomenon prior to 1993? P.S. There was no error in Perić's writning. You don't speak Croatian, that's what you need to understand before interpreting sentences in the Croatian language. That is a blatant example of original research. Regarding Sullivan, other sources proved him wrong, not my own interpretation of his writings. Sullivan is a biased, partisan source, whose work wasn't recognized by other scholars (experts), and Grove press which published his book, basically, an essay on his religious journey isn't reputable for publishing scholarly work (they publish novels and belletristic - a genre Sullivan's book belongs to). Not only that but Sullivan doesn't use primary sources, doesn't use sources throughout his book, which makes it - a primary source par excellence! --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In your haste I don't think you read this: This statement in the Preface by Peric "The Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar has been repeatedly public and in writing in relation to the Medjugorje phenomena, starting in August 1981." explains another reason why this is a primary source because the publisher is Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar and has been consistently involved in the OLM apparitions since the beginning. The Ordinariate is not neutral and directly involved which includes the bishops and clerks. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

By what you write, it is clear that you don't have a copy of The Miracle Detective. There are pages of listed sources. He is a renowned investigative journalist. Here is a link to the details [[22]]

Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There's none. Governor Sheng (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In my book there are 5 pages of sources listed. Like I said you don't have the book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to have it. I can access it via google books. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Then why haven't you found the long list of sources that he used?Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Distorted edits

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Governor Sheng I have found so many distortions from your edits that it is astounding. Here is one.
(1) Quote from the book:
"In all likelihood, Pope John Paul II did regard Medjugorje with some favour, albeit behind the scenes. Medjugorje was a convenient aid to the Vatican's foreign policy in the 1980's, i.e. supporting the United States and attempting to undermine the communist bloc in Eastern Europe." Maunder page 161
(2) Here is your original edit. The word tacit means not spoken - you are assuming that he never spoke about it. original research. Your words say that the Popes support was tacit or nonspoken and it was for foreign policy reasons - this would be original research.
Also using the word 'for' is saying that the Pope supported Med for foreign policy reasons which does not represent the source.
"The Pope's support for Medjugorje was tacit and for the foreign policy reasons during the 1980s. Namely, at that time, the Vatican was providing support to the United States in overthrowing the communist bloc in Eastern Europe."^[1] Link [[23]]
(3) Here is my edit correcting your words:
The Pope's support for Medjugorje included a convenient support in foreign policy in the 1980's to the Vatican that was providing support to the United States in overthrowing the communist bloc in Eastern Europe.^[1] [[[[24]]
I am so sick and tired of looking at every single edit you make, looking at the sources in detail and have found many distortions and synthesis bias. From now on instead of just leaving a comment in my edits, I am going to bring them here in detail for the record.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Tacit - silent. Not public. Behind the scenes. For all else, see above. Was I supposed to quote the source verbatim? How the fuck is this distortion of the source? And this is the big problem you have?

Ok. Resolved.
Yes I see you changed your edit to: The Pope's support for Medjugorje was tacit and served the Vatican's foreign policy reasons during the 1980s. Namely, at that time, the Vatican was providing support to the United States in overthrowing the communist bloc in Eastern Europe. Since tacit means implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed. It seems ok. Taking out the word 'for' and replacing it with 'served' made the sentence neutral. Very good.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol... This is just crazy... You're out of this world. Explain your misuse of sources as I explained. Why are you making a mess everywhere? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The Pope's support for Medjugorje was tacit and for the foreign policy reasons during the 1980s. Namely, at that time, the Vatican was providing support to the United States in overthrowing the communist bloc in Eastern Europe. vs he Pope's support for Medjugorje was tacit and served the Vatican's foreign policy reasons during the 1980s. Namely, at that time, the Vatican was providing support to the United States in overthrowing the communist bloc in Eastern Europe. - So pardon my French, but what's the fucking difference?

Ignoring your swearing which I find unnecessary and repulsive by the way. The word 'for' in this sentence insinuates that the Pope supported Medjugorje for foreign policy reasons. The word served is more accurate because it reflects what is in the source that the Pope supports Medjugorje and this support in turn served the foreign policy reasons.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Now explain this shit:

[25] "In all likelihood, Pope John Paul II did regard Medjugorje with some favour, albeit behind the scenes. Medjugorje was a convenient aid to the Vatican’s foreign policy in the 1980s, i.e. supporting the United States and attempting to undermine the communist bloc in Eastern Europe." - And how the fuck did you manage to make it sound like "John Paul's support for Medjugorje was convenient for US foreign policy" or "the support for Medjgorje was mirrored in support in foreign policy" or some other shit, when the author states that his support stemmed from the foreign policy?... Do you distort all sources that way or just this one?

In the end - you cannot find distortion of sources on my part, but I found many on yours, which were very much discussed before.

@Red Rose 13: has misused sources on several occasions. They are finding random quotes on the Internet and uses the sources from the Internet as if they checked them and read them themselves.

Case 1 - Sister Emmanuel Maillard's book.

They used her book as a reference claiming that Sister Lucia's nephew told that his aunt has visions of Our Lady of Medjugorje.

Example - [26]

Comparison - [27]

The internet:

According to Sister Lucia’s own nephew, Father Salinho — a Salesian priest who lives in Portugal — Sister Lucia continued receiving visions of the Virgin Mary long after 1917, and some of these apparitions of the Virgin spoke to Sister Lucia of the Madonna’s continued work in Medjugorje. This report of Father Salinho’s was documented by the French author Sister Emmanuel Maillard in her book Medjugorje, Triumph of the Heart! (Queenship, 2004), a revised edition of Sister Emmanuel’s earlier popular work, Medjugorje: the 90s. Pope John Paul II met with Sister Emmanuel, was given a copy of her earlier book, and therefore this knowledge – between Fatima’s main visionary and the apparitions in Medjugorje – may not have been foreign to the Vatican.

Red Rose:

Her nephew, Father Salinho, who is a Salesian priest and lives in Portugal, reported that Sister Lucia had not only continued receiving visions of Fatima but she also confirmed the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje. Some of these apparitions of the Virgin Mary spoke to Sister Lucia of the her continued work in Medjugorje.

In this case, Red Rose cites page 71 (out of blue), and references the same page where they mention that Bishop Hnilica quoted Pope John Paul II. [28].

Case 2 - Slawomir Oder's book

Example - [29]

Comparison - [30]

The Internet:

John Paul II commented to the Archbishop of Slovakia, Pavel Hnilca: “Medjugorje is the continuation of Fatima, it is the completion of Fatima.” (Slovimir Oder, Why He is a Saint p. 169)

Red Rose:

Bishop Hnilica went to Russia on March 25, 1984 with Mother Teresa's rosary, to be present in Russia when Pope John Paul II in Rome consecrated Russia and the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This consecration fulfilled Our Lady's request in Fatima. When Hnilica returned to Rome, Pope John Paul II invited him to lunch and they shared a three hour lunch talking about the consecration. During that meeting the Pope said, "...Medjugorje is the continuation and fulfillment of Fatima!"

Here, they found somewhat detailed report about Hnilica having a discussion with the Pope [which can be easly found, like here, and misused the source they found on the internet]. They also referenced Maillard's books' p. 71 like in Case 1. The same page as a reference for both edits or a mistake? If the first premise is correct, then please, provide a full quote with context, if the latter premise is correct, fix the page number and provide a quote.

Case 3 - Inside the Vatican

Example - [31]

Comparison - [32]

The Internet:

In line with Roman Catholic tradition, Pope John Paul II considers the Medjugorje phenomenon an issue for the local hierarchy. It is, however, common knowledge, that the Pope is sympathetic to the Marian site. In a meeting with Bishop Paul Hnilica, the Pope reportedly said: "If I were not the Pope, I would probably have visited Medjugorje by now." During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: "All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?"

This article was taken from the November 1996 issue of "Inside the Vatican." Subscriptions: Inside the Vatican, Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, 3050 Gap Knob Road, New Hope, KY 40052, 1-800-789-9494, Fax: 502-325-3091.

Red Rose:

During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: "All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?"

--Governor Sheng (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to take the time to pull out all of your distortions from the past but as I discover them in the future. I will be posting them on the talk page... no matter how you attack me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure you won't cause there are non. You would mention them for know if you had any ground as I did. Also, considering your malicious editing in the past time, if you had "meat to bite", you'd write about it.

[33] "In all likelihood, Pope John Paul II did regard Medjugorje with some favour, albeit behind the scenes. Medjugorje was a convenient aid to the Vatican’s foreign policy in the 1980s, i.e. supporting the United States and attempting to undermine the communist bloc in Eastern Europe." VS

The Pope's support for Medjugorje included a convenient support in foreign policy in the 1980's to the Vatican that was providing support to the United States in overthrowing the communist bloc in Eastern Europe.

Explain this distortion you accused me of (only to conclude in the end there were no distortions on my side) --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It is because you changed it and took out the distortion in our discussion above, which is plain to see. I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course you haven't. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have something to say about my edit and it is wikipedia guidelines directed feel free.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I am not going to respond to all your accusations on this post. If you have issues that need to be settled bring them to discussion one at a time on the talk page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Again thank you for correcting your unintended error and bringing your sentence to a neutral place.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I corrected nothing. What are you talking about? Governor Sheng (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This correction that was discussed in detail on the talk page at the beginning and then when you said "Ok Resolved" [[34]]. Then you changed it again here [[35]] and then reverted yourself returning to your original edit here [[36]]. Then changed it again here [[37]]. I assume you were working on it and that is why there were so many edits. The result is that you corrected the edit, representing what was said in the source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Complete Scam

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The goings on at Medjugorje are a complete hoax. 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9CE4:7403:CC42:FC91 (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have several reasons to believe it's a hoax. 1. There has been no hard evidence of any miracle. 2. The original priest advisor has been excommunicated. He has been accused of sexual impropriety, and he has started a new religion. 3. The previous local bishop doesn't believe it, and neither does the new local bishop (I think I got these right.) 4. (Smell test.) I saw a video on it which was quite objective in its portrayal. After seeing that video, I simply "feel" there's something suspicious about the whole thing. Vegasprof (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Maunder 2016, p. 161.

[1] Klimek, Daniel M. (2018). Medjugorje and the Supernatural - Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 64–67.

[Laurentin-2] Cite error: The named reference Laurentin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[FOOTNOTEMaunder2016161-3] Maunder 2016, p. 161.

[1]

[1]

[1]