Talk:Pavol Hnilica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Source: http://www.bleskovky.sk/akt/424077/Zomrel-katolicky-biskup-Pavol-Hnilica
What is this? Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Clean up

• removing primary source used in controversial issues. [[1]] Forgot to sign Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• expanded in areas using the source that is already there. I went to the source and read it and then expanded the article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

The rule doesn't apply here. First, Hnilica is deceased now. Second, he is a public figure. He's a bishop, a calling that is by definition directed for the public. The fact that so many authors, from various parts of the world (the USA, the Netherlands, Croatia, Slovakia etc.) written about him, says that he is indeed a public figure. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think he is a public figure then I direct you to this guideline - WP:PUBLICFIGURE - "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources [[2]] documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, these are the guidelines for the living people, or to be specific, living public figures. Hnilica is dead. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussions as of 3/24/21

The reference from Kutlesa which is actual a document with the conclusion written by Bishop Peric is not to be used on these pages as per previous discussions:

• Regarding Kutlesa
• From my understanding because he was a Monsignor for the Catholic Church and what he wrote was published by the Catholic Church, that makes he[[3]] and his document a compromised source (Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar). Here is the pdf of OGLEDALO PRAVDE [[4]]
• (1) He prepared this document for the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje, "Prepared by Don Drazen Kutlesa" - in other words he was working for the Episcopal Ordinariate of Mostar.
• (2) BISHOP'S ORDINARY MOSTAR - THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE - Preparation and syllable :Don Drazen Kutlesa - this is the Bishops version of Medjugorje
• (3) Ratko Perić, the Bishop, wrote the conclusion of the document not Kutlesa. It is a product of the Bishops who is directly involved as well. Kutlesa just did the preparation of what he was given by the Bishop. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw, Here is the link explaining Wikipedia guidelines on Primary & Secondary sources WP:RSPRIMARY. Your links don't relate to Wikipedia guidelines and just a link to the definition on Wikipedia itself.

Your understanding is wrong. Someone being a monsignor of the Catholic Church doesn't mean anything. However, your hypocrisy allows you to, while claiming Kutleša is partisan because he's a Catholic priest, use Klimek, also a Catholic priest, as a source and to claim that Klimek is an independent source. This doesn't make Kutleša's book "a compromised source", but it could make a person using this line of argumentation a "compromised person", or a hypocrite.

(1) He didn't prepare the book for the Ordinariate, but for the general public. This is only your interpretation of his words, which cannot be interpreted as such by anyone with a bit of common sense and basic knowledge of the Croatian language. Do you speak Croatian or are you using Google translate? "Priredio/pripremio [name of the author]" is rather translated as "edited by" in English. This is because his book contains interviews and documents from other authors besides writings of his own. One must remain astonished by your silly argumentation.

(2) Kutleša's book being the bishop's version of the book is again, only your interpretation of the book's content. Bishop Ratko Perić didn't edit the book. He is the author of few chapters, which doesn't influence Kutleša's credibility. Co-authorship is a normal thing. The person of the bishop is one thing, the Episcopal Ordinariate is another. A bishop with his personal name is a physical person, while the Ordinariate is a legal entity that exists whether there's seating bishop or not, or if the bishop is John Johnson or Peter Peterson. The Ordinariate is always the same. It's like claiming the books published by the Oxford University Press are all influenced by the seating president of the University or director of the Press. This doesn't make any sense.

(3) Same thing. The bishop can edit or write few chapters of a book, which can be edited by someone else. The book, however, isn't the product of the bishop.

Your pointless arguments aside, I can conclude that you also distorted WP:RSPRIMARY. First, you wrongly concluded that Kutleša's book is a primary source, which by any definition it's not. Then, secondly, you concluded that it, as such, cannot be used on Wikipedia because it breaks WP:RSPRIMARY. It's like me saying Charles Charleson (in reality a fellow human) is a dog, therefore, he's not allowed to walk on the beach because there's a sign that forbids entry to dogs. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with both your Kutlesa (Peric) & Peric "sources" -

• Not Independent
• Original Research
• not a reliable secondary source
• self-published
• directly involved in the controversies

If I were you I would educate myself on the Wikipedia Guidelines. I have reported the problem. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed a post with a crime allegation - removed the sentence allegation that Hnilica laundered money. per wikipedia guideline [[WP:BLPCRIME] For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Original research is allowed for authors, but not Wikipedia editors. They are a reliable secondary source and are used as a source in many sources you consider reliable. Not self-published. Not directly involved in the Medjugorje events. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes we as wikipedia editors are not allowed to use sources that are Original Research [[5]] "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" WP:RSPRIMARY Primary , non Independent [6], self-published and not a reliable secondary source [WP:RSPRIMARY] should never be used for anything controversial. I have repeatedly asked you to please educate yourself on the wikipedia guidelines for reliable, independent, secondary sources. Yet you again used Kutlesa in this article for something controversial. I am removing it again. Also you have repeatedly put back the wiki links when there is no page. LOOK at the article and see them in read and please remove the links.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed here before any other info is put on the page. In the second trial Hnilica was acquitted because the Vatican never produced the money and he never received possession of the Calvi's documents or only because he was under duress which makes no legal sense.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Authors do original research in order to write a book. It's what they do. Monographies are original research. You cannot present the research of others as your own. This is how academia works. Second - red links aren't forbidden on Wikipedia. Third - it is your practice to rewrite the whole article before discussing anything. I'm not doing any of that. What's the problem now? Foruth, you have no idea bout what is legal and what's not. Attempting a crime, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, is breaking the law. Whether Hnilica obtained documents or not is irrelevant. Vatican didn't produce the money, but instead, said before the court that Hnilica has no connection to them whatsoever (which will be referenced later). Hnilica paid the money out of his own organisation. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What the f is wrong with you? Allan doesn't believe anything, he was reporting what the verdict said. Being under duress is one of the reason a person *can* be acquitted after committing a crime. It's a standard in every legal system. If someone's threatening John Johnson to beat him up if he don't sell drugs, then Johnson acts under duress. The court may or may not acquit Johnson. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw, if an author adds an explanation in a footnote, it can be used as a ref. Stop being silly and making up the rules. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I will be responding later but I do need to show you one thing. Your link to original research is linked to an article on Wikipedia pages but we are referring to the Wikipedia guidelines for editors - here is the link a third time [[7]] Read the whole page, it explains everything. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral and unbiased editing

We as editors need to present all points of view on the pages not our own biases. We need to remain neutral while presenting relevant facts and viewpoints. "Reality is not neutral, balanced, or unbiased, and content must mirror it. Content should be presented without the influence of editorial bias." WP:NEUTRALEDIT Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Working on bringing all points of view to this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

But you're contradicting yourself. "Reality is not neutral, balanced". Not all views need to be present, but the correct ones. We cannot add the claims of Holocaust deniers to the Holocaust-related articles, can we? Though for sure the article would be more balanced, they would be a source of misinformation. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Fyi the words you are responding to come from the link and are in quotes - it comes from Wikipedia not me. "Reality is not neutral, balanced, or unbiased, and content must mirror it. Content should be presented without the influence of editorial bias."Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You're breaking the Wikipedia rules you're quoting then. Good job! --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I saw that you added several problematic segments to the article, all of which were your *own* conclusions, explanations, etc. This is the schoolbook example of POV-pushing, Original research, and whatnot, all of which you wrongly attributed to me. The sentences like "Vatican transfers money all around the world, but even though Yallop claims this and that, it was never proven that X did this and that". What the hell is that? Since when editors can frivolously add their own explanations and conclusions to the article. Another example is "yeah, the vatican said the talks were fake, but you know, Hnlica and the Pope talked under the table, which evil Vatican officials have no idea about... pssst". And the source for that is what? Your own damn conclusion and opinion. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I too was feeling uncomfortable with my words and will remove until I find a source to give it more credibility. the Vatican transfer, etc... In regards to the Yallop claims - that is sourced - Isn't it obvious that just because a journalists makes a claim doesn't mean that it is true. Isn't it obvious if Hnilica was never arrested or convicted that it might not be true. The reader needs to make that decision unless we can provide the proof. What do you think? Some of what you post and how you post it shows your bias. It seems like everyone of these pages, you are twisting things to your bias.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed in reviewing your reversals and comments that you assume when there is a source there and I add the full context, that I made it up. I actually am going to the source that is already there and reading the issue in full context and then add the full view not just a portion of it which leaves out important information. So I am going to be putting much of what I wrote back. I recommend that you read or reread the source. You will find it there. Remember that you cannot delete any information from a reliable source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you are making things up that cannot be found anywhere in the sources. The context that you present is made up by you. Like table talks between the Pope and Hnilica (they were private) or that Yallop's claims were never proven (says who?) or that the Vatican was channeling money here and there and what not. (Yallop says the Franciscans were channeling money, ie donations). So yes, you're making things up. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Better be careful because most of my editing comes directly for the source placed there.

• (1) If you don't believe what I wrote look at the references yourself. Before deleting my post, you had better prove I didn't get the information from the source listed right next to it.
• (2) Can you prove that Yallops claims are based in the reality of law? Was he arrested? Was he convicted in a court of law. I have not found this in any books and I have researched about 15 reliable sources now. No other author accused Hnilica of laundering money.
• (3) Stop calling me names - you repeatedly do this and if do it again, I will be filing a complaint.
• (4) I already said I agreed to take out that the Catholic church just like any other large organization transfers money to its difference churches etc. Even though it is obvious.

Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what you're up to. Making things up.

What the book says: "During the pontificate of John Paul II this interaction [the author talks about ignoring of such phenomenons and giving a voice to the people in the same paragraph] led to the formalization of the devotions of some highly controversial persons, while some previously banned sites of apparitions recieved positive toleration or at least a level of acknowledgment"

What you made up: "John Paul supported this network and gave acknowledgement to previously banned sites like The Lady of All Nations."

We are told to paraphrase and it is clear that he either gave positive toleration or at least a level of acknowledgment. I chose the lessor which is acknowledgment. No where does it say that he condemned nor banned but gave it a nod.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

How did you make such a conclusion? 1) You did original research 2) You misused the source to provide a reference for your own invention 3) You're POV-pushing. Very disruptive editing, not just on this article, but this is your pattern of behaviour on many other articles. This, and many examples of such editing, not just on this article, is exactly thing what I mean when I say you're making things up. Which is what you exactly do. Adding your own conclusions and explanations and misusing references to support such conclusions and explanations. This way of editing is the main reason of my distrust in your usage of any source. I tried to apply good faith towards you, but there are way too many examples of such bad editing.

You made JP from an observer into an active protagonist, even though the source clearly states the first. You attributed him with the support for Hnilica's network – the thing that source doesn't even mention! One must be astonished by your editing. You either don't understand what you read or you're clearly promoting your point of view. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you have not read the reference - here is the link which is easy to follow from the page.- [[8]]

Who is the disruptive one? I am reverting your revert. It is all on page 1806. Like I told you above, you had better be sure you thoroughly check the reference before you assume I didn't pull the info from it. It is all documented here. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

And I'm quoting from that page. I provided you with the quote. Check it yourself for the fifth time. What paragraph are you quoting, I wonder? The one from p. 1806 I quoted here? Or are you now gonna make up some random page number as well? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry you cannot find the information that is there is plain sight. I gave you the link, the page number and now you want me to count out the paragraphs. I thought you did a lot of research? It is located in the last paragraph on the left side. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Lol, that's the paragraph I quoted and compared it to your edit. What are you talking about? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Here you go again VISIBLE HERE:

What the book says: "During the pontificate of John Paul II this interaction [the author talks about ignoring of such phenomenons and giving a voice to the people in the same paragraph] led to the formalization of the devotions of some highly controversial persons, while some previously banned sites of apparitions recieved positive toleration or at least a level of acknowledgment" What you made up: "John Paul supported this network and gave acknowledgement to previously banned sites like The Lady of All Nations."

I'm amazed that you're still holding to your narrative... This is funny. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I took out the words supported but left acknowledgement. It is better for Wikipedia to discuss problems here, give other editors time to respond. Patience is a virtue. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

And lying is a vice. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor cannot just revert edits because they don't like the source or the information in the source. You are editing warring because of your personal beliefs. Your comment "JP gave nothing. SOme thing happend during his pontificate, he wasn't an active participant" Is you reverting solid information because of a personal belief.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

My belief is irrelevant here. We have a clear quote from a source and your edit which do not correspond. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between: the court ruled that Hnilica acted under duress and He was acquitted for acting under duress.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng:This section needs to be looked at carefully. I need you to translate the three pages you used as references. I translated them using google and another translator and get the general idea. I need to verify the references. One of the references is actually a opinion from someone else. It seems opinion based.
Dražen Kutleša writing about the matter, reports that in March 1994, while in Mostar, Hnilica falsely presented himself as the Pope's personal delegate and attributed statements to Pope John Paul II supportive of Medjugorje, which were dismissed as false by the Vatican. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are the wikipedia guidelines for controversial articles Wikipedia:Controversial_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

New example of itentionally misusing sources by Red Rose

1. [9]

What the source says: "During the pontificate of John Paul II this interaction [the author talks about ignoring of such phenomenons and giving a voice to the people in the same paragraph] led to the formalization of the devotions of some highly controversial persons, while some previously banned sites of apparitions recieved positive toleration or at least a level of acknowledgment""

What Red Rose wrote: "John Paul supported this network and gave acknowledgement to previously banned sites like The Lady of All Nations."

The problem here is elaborated in the section above.

what is actually on the page - "John Paul gave acknowledgement to previously banned sites like The Lady of All Nations." and backed up by the reference.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's simple. I pooped vs. it was pooped in my toiled during my pontificate. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

2. [10]

What the source says: "Sigl is a faithful follower of the titular bishop of Rusadus, Paolo Maria Hnilica, S.J., in Rome who sits at the center of the web of contestative Marian movements"

This so called reference is actually a very short footnote in another book that is completely out of context. I am not sure Wikipedia would allow that as a source. Also take note there is another reference for that sentence.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your opinions are [ ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c&ab_channel=klatica your opinions]. Sorry. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What Red Rose wrote: "Hnilica was a part of a web or network of the Marian movements that *included* contested ones."

No. The cult networks didn't include "contested ones", they were all contested cults, according to the source. Red Rose implies here that there might be cults that weren't contested. (An example of POV-pushing and distorting of what the source actually said)

3. [11]

What the source says: "He was said to have the ear of Pope John Paul II and reported that the pope was privately interested in Medjugorje"

What Red Rose wrote: "It was known that Hnilica had the Pope's personal ear in Medjugorje"

He was said to have the ear became – it was known! What sort of editing is this?!

Thank you for asking - please note that there are now THREE references backing this.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, there's only one. The Maunder's. The quote was originally from his book, then you added Kengor and rephrased Maunder's sentence. Neither Kengor speaks of Pope being his personal ear in Medjugorje! This is another example of you misusing even Kengor. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What Kengor actually says: Persecuted by the Czech communist regime, Hnilica was forced to live in exile in Rome. He was close to John Paul II, a fellow Slav, and to Sister Lúcia and Mother Teresa as well. The bishop had recently met with Mother Teresa and her translator, confessor, and spiritual adviser, Monsignor Leo Maasburg, who had been ordained in Fátima. Knowing that Hnilica and Maasburg would soon travel to the Soviet Union, Mother Teresa asked the two men to bring with them a bag of Miraculous Medals of the Blessed Mother to “plant” in Russian territory. For the nun, these medals served as a special kind of prayer and act of faith, to be placed in confident hope that God’s fruits would one day be produced in the USSR. She armed Hnilica and Maasburg with the medals and commissioned them as lieutenants in “Our Lady’s army at work,” as Maasburg put it."

What you say: "It was known he had the Pope's personal ear". What the hell is that?! Remove your disruptive edits, stop misusing sources. I will report this. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am truly confused about why you are upset. Do you have an agenda on this page? Here are the references and the words from their books: Not sure why you were unable to see it. I do also own a copy of two of these books.

(1) Had the Pope's personal ear = quote from Maunder Our Lady of the Nations: Bishop Pavel Hnilica, a Slovakian Jesuit, consecrated secretly during the communist period, visited Medjugorje on several occasions. He was said to have the ear of Pope John Paul II and reported that the pope was privately interested in Medjugorje, seeing it as a continuation of Fatima in the battle with communism.

(2) His confidant = quote from Sullivan, The Miracle Detective: John Paul had dispatched his confidant Bishop Hnilica to accompany Marija on a visit to Russia; The bishop told her repeatedly how the pope wished he could visit Medjugorje.

(3) Was close to = A pope and a President by Kengor - Persecuted by the Czech communist regime, Hnilica was to live in exile in Rome. He was close to John Paul II, a fellow slav, and to Sister Lucia and Mother Teresa as well.

I'm amazed by your intellectual skills. Maunder states that Hnilica was suspected to be the Pope's personal ear in Medjugorje. You rephrased it as to sound like he *was* the Pope's personal ear by claiming that it is no longer suspected, but it is known he has acted as the Pope's personal ear in Medjugorje because, another author, writing completely on another chapter of Hnilica's life, states he was close to Pope JP. And then, there's Sullivan talking about the episode in Russia from 1984. Nota bene he wasn't used as a source here at all (putting aside his bias as Medjugorje enthusiast). You think I'm stupid or what? This is the problem with your editing. You're mispresenting and misusing sources in order to support your own frivolous inventions. If you don't see the problem with this, then I don't know what to do to help you. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And I amazed that I have to break it all down for you.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Fyi Maunder did not use the word "suspected" but instead "he was said to have" - major difference. I used the word *was* because he is dead now. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Lol, are you? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Making it simple for you Rose: Johnson says: "It's possible Red Rose acted as a Soviet spy in 1989". Richardson says: "Red Rose was friends with some Soviet guy and had contacts in the Soviet Union in 1964". Peterson says: "Red Rose was in the Soviet Union in 1972." Me doing my own conclusion: "It was known that Red Rose acted as a Soviet spy in 1989 because Richardson and Peterson said she had contacts there 17 and 25 years ago. Hmmm... I must be right! This would be a textbook example of original research. If you think you can contribute the world knowledge with your conclusions, write a book, but leave that out of Wikipedia. Something so obvious to you, might not be reality. This is not for you to decide. Sorry. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

4. [12]

Red Rose just removed the part they simply don't like, even though, it's supported by the source. Nota bene, they paraphrased the erased part and then chose to erase it completely.

The erased part: "Chris Maunder believes that Hnilica's support for the Medjugorje apparitions was a burden to the cause because of his involvement with the Vatican Bank scandal from the 1990s."

What the source says: "Hnilica’s reputation does not really help the cause of the apparitions, as he has been tainted with the scandal of the Vatican banking crisis of the 1980s."

--Governor Sheng (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You acted too quickly. I moved the sentence above a paragraph or two and then took this one out. It was not deleted. You act too quickly.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Kutleša's book as a source

First and foremost, Kutleša's Ogledalo pravde is not a primary source.

Defining what a primary source is, Wikipedia states:

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources."

Dražen Kutleša was never directly involved in the Medjugorje phenomenon nor was an insider in any event related to Medjugorje.

Red Rose's claim that his book is "self-published" is wrong. Of such sources, Wikipedia states:

"Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] 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."

Kutleša's material was never published on his personal web-page, nor self-published. Self-publishing by definition means to publish using the author's own resources. That's not the case with Kutleša's book. His book was published by the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, not owned by Dražen Kutleša. Thus, not self-published by definition.

Second, even if he was self-published, and he's not, he still can be used if his work was published by other authors, and it was. Marijana Belaj's "Milijuni na putu" is an example where Kutleša's work is cited by reputable authors. 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 ([13]) at Charles University (Prague, Czechia [14]), University of Osijek (Osijek, Croatia [15]), and Bursa Uludağ University (Bursa, Turkey [16]). 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 ([17]) such as Jutarnji list [18] (2nd most read), Slobodna Dalmacija [19] (9th most read), Večernji list [20] (4th most read), Express, published by 24 sata (Croatia) [21] (17th most read); in Bosnia and Herzegovina [22] such as Slobodna Bosna [23] (9th most read). --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If Bishop Perics work compiled and edited by Kutlesa is used in reputable books, then use those books as your references. See my detailed response in the above post. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, that is not the case. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussions as of April 1

This has gone on far enough. If you are going to take out what you don't like, then we should shrink the page down to information with only reliable sources, not primary, self published sources or POV sources and start over. You just added a miss mash of disconnected information regarding something that Hnilica was acquitted of and on top of that took up half the page. Now that is an editing problem. There should be just a few sentences or a small paragraph about this legal problem and his acquittal. In America and I assume in Italy as well, people are innocent until proven guilty and Hnilica was proven not guilty in a court of law. And this should be reflected on Wikipedia not your opinion or bias. So if you cannot edit this page in a neutral non POV way then we need to seek help with this page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Also I am now keeping track of your interaction with me including name calling, accusations and belittlement because you disagree with me. Try to assume good faith and be respectful. In order for me to edit on any of the pages you seem to have a bias about, you verbally attack at every turn. I just want a page that gives the whole picture of Hnilica's life not just a one sided biased view. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked about why I took out the reference by Silk. All you gave was the location of a footnote, again, p 131-132. The information in the two sentences you placed on Wikipedia are not shown in the footnote which consists of one sentence which doesn't even mention the womans name. Seriously GSheng you actually think that this is a good reference? I am going to take it out again and place citation needed.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Use sources for the subject they talk about. First and foremost, Sullivan doesn't talk about Hnilica in Medjugorje when saying he was Pope's confidant. He talks about his episode in Russia. So, don't misuse Sullivan here. Then also, stop twisting Maunder's wording. He never wrote that "it was know" that Hnilica was the Pope's personal ear, or whatever. Second, Kutleša isn't a primary source. He was never directly involved in Medjugorje, but even if he was, he writes here about Hnilica, not Medjugorje. Thus, he cannot be considered a primary source by any means. Third, Wikipedia is not a court of law. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) Sullivan is the author of The Miracle Detective who wrote that Hnilica was John Paul II confidante. No misuse here.

I read where Hnilica was exiled to Rome and lived there - I will post it and I think there is a date involved. As Yallop says they were friends for many years.

(2) I am going to add a sentence before the four sources that says: It was known by many that Hnilica was close to John Paul II for many years

(3) "According to the journalist Yallop, "John Paul II and Hnilica enjoyed a close friendship for many years." Why did you remove this? You gave no explanation.

(4) The section that takes up half the page needs to shrink down to a small paragraph. Wikipedia should not be used to try to prove or disprove a legal case. We just need to keep it to the facts.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(5) Here is the the document [[24]] you are referring to which was *Prepared(Edited) by Don Drazen Kutlesa. I used Google to translate the title page:

MIRROR JUSTICE - Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar,
about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje
Prepared by
Don Drazen Kutlesa

• Also to further confirm that Kulesa was just preparing this document for the Bishop Peric, who is directly involved in the controversies in Medjugorje, the conclusion was written by Bishop Peric. This word ZAKLJUČAK translates to Conclusion page 311 and on page 314 by Ratko Perić, biskup which translates to Ratko Perić, bishop. And the preface was also written by Peric page 11 PREDGOVOR translates to Preface page 15 signed by Peric
  
• The second page title says: BISKUPSKI ORDINARIJAT MOSTAR, OGLEDALO PRAVDE, Priprema i slog: Don Dražen Kutleša Translated by google as: BISHOP'S ORDINARY MOSTAR, THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE, Preparation and syllable: Don Drazen Kutlesa
  
• Furthermore this document was printed by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar.
  

I am truly sorry because I know you value this source but it is:
(1) Primary source
(2) Original research
(3) Not a reliable secondary source
(4) Self-published
(5) The Bishop is directly involved in the controversies
(6) And to top it off you used it on Wikipedia creating a controversial post.

• I am not going to waste my type posting linking to all the guidelines, I assume you know them all but just in case this might help - the guidelines for Controversial articles [[25]],/br>
• Also you made a comment wondering why there is a problem with this page because it was started long ago. Just take a look at your edits starting December 2020. That is where the problems started.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Been spending a good deal of time editing today. I brought new information to the page with excellent resources. I will be adding more to the areas as times goes on. Trying to keep posts in date order as best I can. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather refrain from using "apologetic" sources with aim to "convince us" of reality of the apparitions. Such were the comments from peer review, and I repeat them here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I worked all day yesterday research and posting updates to this page. As I mentioned above if you have a problem with my improvements, bring them to the talk page. EVERYTHING I posted was from an excellent reliable source as per the talk page discussion about sources on the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page.[26] Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No. You will bring your problems to the talk page, as you're doing major editings without any discussion. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I just expanded the page from reliable secondary sources and you reverted them over and over. You have the problem. I am going to report this problem to Wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

1) Those sources received negative peer review and aren't reliable nor excellent (Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje). 2) Major reconstruction of an article, without any prior discussion is not advisable on Wikipedia. If you want to do a major expansion, you should discuss the issue first. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Again the sources you are objecting to, Slp1, you and I already went through months ago when this list was created on the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page here - [27] and here [28] Both Sullivan and Klimek are on the good to excellent list. An editor should be able to edit on a page using these resources without constant disruptive interference. However Bishop Peric who created OGLEDALO PRAVDE with Kutlesa as the compiler and organizer is not an excellent source but a primary one, self publishing one. see discussion on this booklet aboveRed Rose 13 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have filed a dispute resolution for this page - here [29] I am going to let Slp1 know as well since I mentioned that she has been helping us on the Our Lady of Medjugorje page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The list was made before I made the objection to them. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your objection to Kutleša, I'll repeat what I said in the section bellow.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

Even if Peirć is the "mastermind author" behind Kutleša, he is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [30], [31] [32], [33], [34], [35]. Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra are theological magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively; while Hercegovina is a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [36] [37] [38]. Thus he is a credible, reputable author. Nota bene, this comment of mine doesn't apply just to Kutleša's book or some parts written by Perić in that book, but also any other article or book written by Ratko Perić and used as a source on Wikipedia. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem is your book reviews do not relate to any of the books I listed. Any books about Medjugorje are the ones in question and they are primary sources and self-published. @Slp1: has also stated this. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I ask you to read again what I quoted. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. What this quote states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska smotra, University of Zagreb Hercegovina; University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. That's the whole point of this Wikipedia rule. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus if you will, since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author.

That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. We can see from the paragraph above that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source.

In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Responding

Regarding Peric and Ogledalo Pravde - here are a couple of further points.
(1) Ogledalo Pravde was published by the Mostar Diocese itself which is not reliable nor independent source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
(2) It is filled with interviews and statements including personal opinions and gossip [WP:PSTS] and these are not independent from the apparitions.
(3) The publication that you posted with links, non of them are Ogledalo or the other ones I listed.
(4) Ogledalo Prave is a compilation of statements and interviews of people directly involved. Peric even makes comments. The few references it uses include other primary sources like Zanic the previous bishop and Bulat, involved in the Commission on Medjugorje, Vlasic previous father in Medjugorje, Laurentin, pro Medjugorje
(5) It is a fact that not every book an author writes is going to be a reputable nor reliable source. We have to look at each publication that is trying to be used on Wikipedia. The specific one on this page is Ogledalo Pravde.
(6) WP:RSPRIMARY "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
(7) The full quote: WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. 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."
(8) I am sure that using one of these sources to create a controversial post is not allowed. (9) WP: Red FlagExceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  
• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
  
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
  

Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References

RFC: Remove Yallop Allegation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's consensus to remove the Yallop allegation because only one person is making it. Some participants in the RfC indicate that their position would change if additional sources were found to be covering it. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the sentence reading "David Yallop claims that during the 1980s, Hnilica laundered money in and out of Medjugorje in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. " be deleted? He is the only one claiming this. Also Hnilica was not indicted for this. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You may answer Yes or Remove to remove the sentence, or No or Keep to leave it in. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for.

Survey (Remove Yallop Allegation)

• Remove - unsourced in the article, only one person alleging this. If other sources come up suggesting he laundered I would be willing to change my stance. Remagoxer (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Remove - with the caveat that I am very unfamiliar with this whole situation. I've put about 10 minutes of reading and research into it and it appears that Yallop is the single source for that allegation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Remove - It should be removed considering the allegation was made by a single individual and there was no indictment. Sea Ane (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Remove The allegation should be removed because there was no indictment and only one person accusing him.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Remove - unsourced in the article, only one person alleging this. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Remove - The allegations come from only one person with no other source to support it. Also, Hnilica was acquitted. If we ever get another source supporting this, then the same can be reinstated. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Remove - should be removed, only points to one source from a single individual AutoPrime (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, as per all the above. No prejudice on having another discussion if there are more sources provided. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (Remove Yallop Allegation)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Restore Material on OLM

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to include these paragraphs in the form that they appear in this RfC. Several participants expressed that they might support a different formulation that was more concise and/or written in more encyclopedic language. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the following paragraphs be restored to the section on Our Lady of Medjugorje? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC) They were removed because an editor said he objected to the sources used.

In 1988, the pope, John Paul II, received a group of Croatian Catholics in his private chapel. Instantly he recognized two members of the group from photographs he had seen and approached them, observing, 'Ah yes, Jelena and Marijana, (seers of Our Lady of Medjugorje) who have the interior locutions.'" He greeted every person in the group and then returned his focus on the two girls, staring into their eyes for some time. Two years later in 1990 John Paul II dispatched his confidante, Bishop Hnilica, to accompany Marija, another seer of Our Lady of Medjugorje, on a visit to Russia; 'the bishop told her repeatedly how much the pope wished he could visit Medjugorje..."

[leave existing material in place]

Franic wrote a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, on February 18, 1985, about his concerns regarding Bishop Pavao Žanić, who oversaw Medjugorje, and his approach to the situation in Medjugorje. He requested that the Holy See take over the investigation of the apparitions and appoint an international commission.

In April 1986 Zanic went to Rome to submit his negative report of the apparitions to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was at the time Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Ratzinger summoned him to a personal meeting and reportedly chastised the bishop, telling him that he disapproved of his methods of investigation. Furthermore, the Prefect of the CDF ordered Žanić to suspend his negative judgment, dissolve his commission, and place the entire matter of the investigation into the hands of the Holy See.” Zanic and his commission were released from any further investigations into Medjugorje. Zanic was also instructed to maintain silence about Medjugorje. The Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference was ordered to appoint a new commission under its direction.

You may answer Yes or Support to restore the material, or No or Oppose to leave it out. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Survey (Restore Material on OLM)

• Conditional support I support this addition as long as it is made more concise and less authorial. ~ HAL333 17:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support I support adding both paragraph 1 and paragraphs 2-3 back in the article and agree that they need to be more concise.

However the source by Bishop Pavao Žanić should be removed. Zanic was not independent and was directly involved in the Medjugorje apparitions. He was the bishop of Mostar-Duvno and apostolic administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan from 1980 until his retirement in 1993 and oversaw Medjugorje from when it began in 1981 until his retirement.

The other three sources are independent, reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

If there is a bias according to WP:BIAS ..."reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." It is suggested if there is bias that "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate."Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't support the inclusion of hearsay evidence about Cardinal Ratzinger at CDF. Ratzinger is not mentioned in Reference 4. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As for you, Governor Sheng, please follow the formatting rules for talk pages. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment, we should of have done evaluation of sources first. I'm not in support of discussion like this. The question is about sources, not about the paragraphs. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instantly he recognized two members of the group from photographs he had seen and approached them, observing, 'Ah yes, Jelena and Marijana, (seers of Our Lady of Medjugorje) who have the interior locutions.'" He greeted every person in the group and then returned his focus on the two girls, staring into their eyes for some time.... tfw? That's a nice... example of an encyclopedic article... you've got there. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The paragraphs are not encyclopedic. Rewrite them to a more concise encyclopaeidc version and then get an opinion on them if you want to include something about this. Aircorn (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the rationales above. Sea Ane (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (Restore Material on OLM)

I object to this part of the discussion. The issue is not whether the paragraphs should remain, but whether the sources used are reliable. This is the first issue. If the sources are reliable, and they're not, I don't have an objection to leaving those paragraphs within the article. But because the sources received negative peer reviews and are biased (they were characterised as such by peer reviewers [39], [40], [41]), I oppose the inclusion of these paragraphs. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quoting & source problems

Governor Sheng, I made my corrections and along the way I found these that need correcting:
1) This one needs attribution for a direct quote: "Hnilica was a center of the contested network of Marian apparition movements.:
2) In the Yallop source, it says Hnilica continued the tour - but here you wrote that it ended.
"However, Hnilica's and Lopez's project ended with Archbishop of Denver James Stafford's pronouncement that the visions are not of supernatural origin."
3) This one needs a citation and attribution for a direct quote:
On March 9, 1994, Archbishop Stafford issued the following declaration: "On December 9, 1991, I appointed a commission to investigate alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Mother Cabrini Shrine and other places within the Archdiocese of Denver to Theresa Antonia Lopez. On February 22, 1994, the commission completed its investigation and presented its findings to me. As Archbishop of Denver, I have concluded that the alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Theresa Antonia Lopez are devoid of any supernatural origin."[citation needed]
There might be more that need correcting, I encourage you to look it over.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it was you who used a direct quote. I originally used the phrase "Hnilica lead the contested network" etc. This is just a minor part of a major issue u have with plagiarism.

I don't want to fight with you. I just want the pages to be truthful. I looked at the source that you left there. You might want to look yourself. I am completely over my error of sourcing. I was mistaken with no ill intent. In the process of correcting my own errors, I found yours. Please correct them.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Some parts had sources, but you miraculously deleted them (not your first time), so God knows now what sources I have used there. Will need to check it out and use it again. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Again I don't want to fight with you. When I was going over pages, using sources that you have placed here. I found discrepancies of what you took from the source vs what was actually in the source. It was repeated many times and some of those I have placed on the talk page as an example. I am hoping that we can work together to bring the whole truth to these pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. What's the difference between "being at the centre of the contested network" and being "a leader of the contested network"? What I was doing with quoting the sources is paraphrasing them. That's what one is supposed to do instead of plagiarizing them. You're more than free to restore the original phrasing. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion as of June 17

(1) Governor sheng you accidentally added this sentence into the same paragraph where it already was. here is the link [[42]] If you look further down in the paragraph you will see this same sentence already there. So then we had a duplicate sentence. Then your comment falsely accused me and said: "*Someone* made a little mess... :) Who is it I wonder... Deleting properly referenced sentence... hmmm. Very malicious editing."
(2) Then I removed the duplicate sentence and leaving this comment "removed a duplicate sentence added by GSheng by mistake - The sentence was there a along)" Here is the link [[43]]
(3) Then you added it again and placed it at the top of the paragraph and left this editing comment - "Stop edit warring and be assured, it wasn't a mistake.)" [[44]] (4) Please correct the fact that there are duplicate sentences in a very short paragraph now. I can remove the one in the center or you are welcome to do.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Thanks for moving the sentence in the center of the paragraph.

I just noticed that you accidentally added the very same reference in this very same sentence twice. It appears that they are separate references but they are both from the same book and the same page. Please correct it, into one reference for the whole sentence. It is the first sentence under World network of Marian devotionRed Rose 13 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it and added the url to the book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Reference Issues

Governor Sheng please correct these reference issues: First words of the paragraph and then the reference # and then the issue
In 1992 Hnilica was indicted # 22 & #24 no cite
According to Historian #8 link is dead - fixed red rose
Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol, why would be fixing the No. 8 be my duty, why not you? Had a rough night tonight? Governor Sheng (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol... I took it out.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well... whatever. Governor Sheng (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I see they are all fixed now.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)