Talk:Jozo Zovko/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some minor problems

@Governor Sheng: a) "He continued to hear confessions, so the new Bishop Ratko Perić revoked his confessional jurisdiction as well in 1994." -Bishop Zanic's prior suspension of Zovko's priestly faculties would have automatically precluded the authority to hear confessions throughout Zanic's two jurisdictions. Perić simply confirmed his predecessor's decree. However, the Catholic Herald (UK) says that this took place in 2004.[1] Is 1994 correct? And was that specific to Zovko, or a generic restatement on the part of Perić ratifying Zanic's diocesan decrees?
b) It is stated that Zanic ignored the request to move to Badija in 2008. The monastery website says he and his provincial were invited in 2005. This article gives various reasons for the delayed compliance, however, the property suffered from about sixty years of disrepair, which is possibly why the Province of St. Jerome was amicable to handing it over, and it is not clear that it was even immediately habitable at that time. -I can understand the monastery's interest in presenting this in a favorable light; do the sources given have an interest in doing the contrary? Manannan67 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

a) As far as I recall, the revocation of Zovko's confessional faculty was just of a declarative nature, that is for clarification reasons. Of course, the revocation of his priestly faculties included the right to confess, but Perić emphasised the revocation of confessional right as well, explicitly, just to make things clear. I'll note that in the article. Also, it was in 1994. The article you linked me to probably made an error. Zovko was revoked of his priestly faculties under susspensive conditions that is until he moves far away from Medjugorje. Note that in 2002 he was supposed to give a sermon at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in USA, but Perić informed the local bishop that Zovko was revoked of his priestly facilities, so the local bishop forbade him of holding the sermon. So there's no way his faculties were revoked two years after the USA event. So yes, I believe the Catholic Herald made a typo there.

b) I'll elaborate on that further as well, to make things more clear. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources and contentious statements

Sources that have already been established on the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page that are not reliable and too close to the subject are listed there and discussed there. Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje You are using some of those in this article and that is some of what I was correcting and some times actually found a better reference and replaced the unreliable ones. All you had to do was read my comments as I made the edits. I am going to be putting much of it back in. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines of Living Persons

Please see the guidelines on pages for Living Persons. Very important Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to follow this strictly.

Also as I stated in my edit removing contentious material from a self-published author. Washington Post used a self-published book by Jones. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Here is my statement when I made the edit - "removed an allegation from an author who self publishes his books. WA post used a self publishing author" I researched it - [[2]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not that clear. WaPo: According to the 1998 book "The Medjugorje Deception" by E. Michael Jones, Zovko has been accused of sexually molesting several women making the pilgrimage there. The allegation was repeated in a Nov. 14 article in the Wanderer, a Catholic weekly, and in leaflets handed out by protesters at appearances by Zovko in Boston this week. The book probably is SPS [3], but since WaPo thought it interesting, it may be reasonable to include something about this per WP:PROPORTION. WaPo, a WP:RS, is not bound by WP:SPS. It should have intext attribution though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Then again, possibly we should keep E. Michael Jones far away from anything BLP-related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thought process very educational. Also your comment was much clearer than mine. I saved the conspiracy watch website for future use.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Red Rose 13 Fwiw, Jones is also on Rationalwiki. ADL [4] is probably a better source from the WP-perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, Jones is not the only source here. Also, the Washington Post is a very reliable source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Gråbergs. How did you find these others sources about Jones? Google or ?Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I googled the French one somehow, then "E. Michael Jones" rationalwiki. See also [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: - I have a question. Does Wikipedia allow allegations to be included in an article of anyone, let alone a living person? Since allegation means an assertion that someone has done something wrong, often without proof. Now if it was proven through the legal system, that is different, of course it would be included. Anyone can make allegations.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Look what I found and because of these guidelines, I am removing the allegation statement.

1)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.

2)WP:PUBLICFIGURE If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Even a WP:BLP (related) article can include "allegations", see for example Jake Angeli or Donald Trump's lies. However, the sourcing must be solid, properly represented, and inline with WP:BLPCRIME if applicable. Considering the source of the allegation (Jones), my reading of WP:BLPCRIME is that it is reasonable to exlude this. WaPo states that Jones' accusation was repeated by others, so he is the only reffed source atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'd welcome your opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I just removed it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

thank you again. What does inline mean - I mean is there an inline sourcing?Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a space, in line? As in according to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I was confused because there is inline sourcing...Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please be sure to see the second discussion above: Using Primary unreliable sources Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Using Primary unreliable sources

There is a discussion on the talk page of Our Lady Of Medjugorje which is on going. I copied and pasted part of it here which is about sources that we studied and been guided not to use on these biographical pages. @Slp1::[[6]]The editor guiding us

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

@Governor Sheng: Her words copied and pasted from the Medjugorje talk page are as clear as a bell. I am in process of removing these sources including Laurentin and replacing them with reliable sources. I suggest you re-read Slp1 words directly above. Right now the Jozo Zovko page has duplication and some information that has been corrected by the reliable sources I am adding. I have to clean it up so bring your discussion here. Excellent reliable sources take precedent over the ones Slp1 mentioned above. So I am going to carry on.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Another issue on this page is the use of these primary sources mentioned above that Govenor Sheng & Slp1 and I have already gone over. GSheng just added them back onto this page. I think they need to be deleted. Your thoughts about what should be done.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Atm, I have no opinion on other sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Kutleša, Perić, and others, by definition, aren't primary sources. A book about an event that uses primary sources isn't a primary source, but a secondary one. This is basic logic. Regarding Slp's comment... they said "There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life". Some of these are SOME, that is, not ALL sources used on the article about Tomislav Vlašić. We don't know which sources Slp referred to. Some of these can be any of them. However, by seeing what primary sources are, it's clear a published book cannot be a primary source unless a collection of some documents and so on. Note to be taken, Kutleša, Perić, Bulat and others are mentioned by Slp as directly involved in the Medjugorje phenomenon itself (even though Kutleša was never directly involved). Slp took biographies of other acters as a separate issue. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me the main thing here is not using these compromised sources when dealing with something controversial or adversarial. And that is what I am removing and replacing from our good to excellent list. If there is no replacement I will add citation needed and if one is not found, we take the statement out. Some of the statements from Kutlesa and peric contradict statements from the excellent source. So I am using the better source and its words. Soon this week Slp1 is coming back to the OLMedjugorje page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources are solid as Vlašić's manhood. To this day. Also, they discuss nothing controversial, only his birthday and stuff like that (day of ordination, transfers, and so on and so forth). Sullivan, or whatever his name is, the most excellent source, is a Medjugorje fanatic, a strong supporter of the phenomenon and clearly partisan. Not a good, reliable source. Maybe His Eminence, the Most Excellent Source is wrong. Kutleša and Perić have the archives at their disposal, and they cite the diaries of the visionaries. What sources His Eminence, the Most Excellent Source is using? --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion as of 3/23/21

What does your new edit have to do with Father Zovko's life? It seems like it is on the wrong page. "Mirjana, one of the visionaries, told Zovko on 30 June 1981 on audio tape, that Madonna told her that she would appear only for the next three days, that is until 3 July 1981. Ivanka, another visionary, confirmed this.(Komar 2013, pp=211-212) However, visionaries, including Mirjana and Ivanka, continue to claim to have visions to this day."[7]Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It does. It's an important aspect of the Medjugorje phenomenon, especially when he, after hearing this, had a vision himself, and even appeared to the seers later. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• 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[[8]] and his document a compromised source (Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar). Here is the pdf of OGLEDALO PRAVDE [[9]]
• (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.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Expanded the article bringing in more information.Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuing the expansion with high quality references and information.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Kutleša was a professor at the University of Sarajevo, and the book was published by the Bishop's Ordinariate. The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example: [10], [11], [12], [13]). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica [14], Božidar Petrač [15], Marijan Sivrić [16], Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: Vjeko Božo Jarak [17], Marina Beus [18], Božo Goluža [19], Ivica Šarac [20] etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive [21], the University of Osijek [22]), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher.

Kutleša as an author was never directly involved in the issue, he is a third-person observer of the Medjugorje phenomenon, a reputable author (as a University Professor), thus his writing in this particular book (Ogledalo pravde) can be considered reliable.

Now, regarding Perić. Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [23], [24] [25], [26], [27], [28]. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [29] [30] [31]. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule 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. 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 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. [32]

We can see from the above paragraphs 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.

Note. Ogledalo pravde is not a compilation of interviews and statements, though it includes them.

Although Klimek's book was published by the Oxford University Press, the peer reviews of the books were very negative. Thus, I advise not using this book as a reference, at least not for contentious claims.

Peter Jan Margry who is an authority with good standing on this subject, reviewed his book, and although he commanded it for its philosophical aspects, he nevertheless was critical of its bias, referring to it as "apologetic". Margry writes: "Klimek’s colleagues from Boston College, Franciscan College of Steubenville, and Catholic University of America all praise the book in glowing terms on the Oxford University Press website. This raises the question of why the press decided to publish an apologetic rather than traditionally scholarly work. But a further complication is that the Franciscans themselves are managing the Medjugorje shrine, and have been battling the Vatican for decades to get their heavily contested shrine acknowledged as a site of a supernatural character. And the author? A third order Franciscan friar." [33]

Fiona Bowie at the Journal of Parapsychology comments: "This book could have been more aptly titled In Defense of the Sacred: Why Ann Taves Attribution Theory of Religion is Wrong. [...] Unsurprisingly, Medjugorje and the Supernatural presents a robust defense of Roman Catholic teachings and argues strongly for the genuinely supernatural character of the Medjugorje visions and the sacred and transformative content of the messages passed from Our Lady to the visionaries, and through them to her devotees. The book is well researched and clearly presented, although it could have been half the length as there is a great deal of repetition, both of the general arguments and, in places, of specific details as well. As a theological text, the book may well please its readers, particularly those well disposed towards Marian apparitions. For a more rounded social scientific or historical perspective, or for an account of Medjugorje that places the visionary phenomenon in the context of other paranormal phenomena (other than a discussion of mysticism), this is not the place to come. Read the rest of the review here.

Further, it can be seen from Klimek's website, that indeed he is a biased author, where he promotes "Our Lady's messages" from Medjugorje and is actively involved in promoting Medjugorje apparitions.

Sullivan cannot be considered an independent, reliable source. He is biased. I think we cannot use him as a reference any longer. Sullivan is a Medjugorje sympathizer who claims to have been converted there. Thus he isn't neutral. By claiming to be converted there and actively supporting the cause (like for example on the Oprah show), this makes him directly involved and unreliable. His book is never mentioned by anyone as useful material on the subject; it's a personal narrative about his conversion there.

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

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

— [34]

In conclusion, Klimek and Sullivan aren't reliable sources. Kutleša and Perić can be used as a source and are considered reliable. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: I'll wait for your comments. Do to the article whatever you want. If nothing constructive comes out of it, I'll revert your edits. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Slp1 Vetted Reference list

Excellent, adequate and deprecated sources I have come to the conclusion that we are often dealing with primary sources: sources that are written by people very, very close to the event, and so that is sometimes the main issue rather than the publisher.

Good to Excellent sources

Books, Journal article

• Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Daniel Maria Klimek Oxford University Press, 2018
• "The Gospels According to Christ? Combining the Study of the Historical Jesus with Modern Mysticism", Daniel Klimek". Glossolalia.sites.yale.edu
• Our Lady of the Nations: Apparitions of Mary in 20th-Century Catholic Europe Chris Maunder(2016) OUP
• Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States by Vjekoslav Perica
• “The Miracle Detective An Investigative Reporter Sets Out to Examine how the Catholic Church Investigates Holy Visions and Discovers His Own Faith” -
• A Pope and a President John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century by Paul Kengor Open Road Media
• The Internet and the Madonna: Religious Visionary Experience on the Web. Paolo Apolito University of Chicago Press
• Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion by Juan A. Herrero 1999
• The Vatican Prophecies: Investigating Supernatural Signs, Apparitions, and Miracles in the Modern Age
• "Milijuni na putu. Antropologija hodočašća i sveto tlo Međugorja" by Marijana Belaj
• Contribution to the Study of the Phenomenon of Međugorje: Sound Recordings From the Early Days of Apparitions by Tibor Komar. Ethnologica Dalmatica 2012

News sources

• Rome Reports
• Crux
• Catholic News Agency
• CNS Catholic News Services
• Inside the Vatican
• L'Osseravtore Romano weekly Edition in English
• Večernji List

Tertiary sources-Use some caution

• Oxford Encyclopedia of Religion in America OUP
• The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena by Gordon Melton Visible Ink Press

Primary sources- Use lots and lots of caution

Articles on WP must be written principally using reliable, independent, secondary sources. Please see the strict rules for use of primary sources before seeking to use the following. This is especially important because a lot of people mentioned are still alive so that the "extreme caution" about using primary sources for BLP related material applies. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY.

• Medjugorje and the Church, Denis Nolan
• Medjugorje The Message, Wayne Weible
• Medjugorje: Triumph of the Heart (revised) (1997) also very old
• Perić, Ratko. "The Attacks of the Medjugorje 'Apparition' Against the Bishop Pavao Žanić", May 2, 2017
• Žanić, Pavao (1990). La verita su Medjugorje [The truth about Medjugorje] (in Italian). Mostar: Diocese of Mostar-Duvno.
• The Visions of the Children: The Apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje Janice T. Connell (2007)
• Meetings with Mary: Visions of the Blessed Mother by Janice T. Connell 2015
• Ogledalo Pravde (2001)
• Istina će vas osloboditi by Nikola Bulat
• KAI or eKAI - It seems to be okay for the position of the Catholic Church about certain matters --Slp1
• "Why He is a Saint"
• Zovkić, Mato (1993). "Problematični elementi u fenomenu Međugorja" [The problematic elements in the Medjugorje phenomenon]. Bogoslovska smotra (in Croatian). 63 (1–2): 76–87.
• "Scientific and Medical Studies on the Apparitions at Medjugorje " 1987 by Rene Laurentin (Author), Henri Joyeux
• Žanić, Pavao. ""Izjava Mostarskog Biskupa o Medjugorju", July 25, 1987

Very old, ?Outdated

• Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje
• Kraljević, Svetozar. The Apparitions of Our Lady at Međugorje, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1984

Not reliable

• Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud? (2011)
• Perić, Ratko. "Letter to Thierry Boutet", 2 October 1997
• Sarajevo Times
• "Autentyczność objawień w Medziugorie". eKai (in Polish). 11 April 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2020.
• "Archbishop reveals a surprise about Medjugorje". Catholic Online. 23 August 2017. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• Approval by the Bishop". The Fatima Center. 1930. Retrieved 23 November 2020
• "Detailed Description of Our Lady, the Queen of Peace, as she appears in Medjugorje". Medjugorje - Place of Prayer and Reconciliation. Retrieved 8 Nov 2020.
• Majdandžić-Gladić, Snježana (2017). "O međugorskim zelotima ili Gospom protiv Gospe" [On the zealots of Medjugorje or with Gospa against Gospa]. Vjera i djela (in Croatian). Retrieved 15 August 2020.
• "Vatican Mission Begins in Medjugorje! Archbishop Hoser's Historic Mass". Medjugorje Miracles. 23 July 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• "What Pope's Envoy concluded in Medjugorje?". 03 April 2017. 21 July 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• Kuharic, Franjo. Press Release, Glas Koncila, January 18, 1987
• "Biskupije Mostar-Duvno i Trebinje-Mrkan | Dioeceses Mandetriensis-Delminiensis et Tribuniensis-Marcanensis". Cbismo.com (in Croatian). Retrieved 2017-01-08.
• Svidercoschi, Gian Franco. "Will Pope St. John Paul II Influence the Papal Pronouncement on Medjugorje?", Aleteia, July 16, 2015
• Madrid, Patrick. "Medjugorje and 'The Maciel Effect", April 6, 2010
• Father Hnilica (25 March 1994). Fatima (cassette tape). Minneapolis, MN: Resurrection Tapes.
• "Vatican Mission Begins in Medjugorje! Archbishop Hoser's Historic Mass". Medjugorje Miracles. 23 July 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
• "Medjugorje website". Medjugorje.org. Retrieved 2013-04-01.
• "The Visionaries of Medjugorje". Retrieved 2020-11-04.
• "Local Bishop: Medjugorje Apparitions Are Not Credible". www.total-croatia-news.com.
• "The Truth About Medjugorje—Donal Foley Part I". January 29, 2018.
• Coffin, Patrick (September 23, 2019). "147: The Medjugorje Deception—Dr. E. Michael Jones".
• "Politicizing the Virgin Mary: The Instance of the Madonna of Medjugorje". Csicop.org. Retrieved 2015-08-02.

This is placed here for our information. Please refrain from commenting here because any comments will be deleted. Comment in another section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Conduct by Govenor Sheng

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. WP:CIVIL Governor Sheng once again here is another uncivil comment copied from your revert. "User Rotten Rose deleted the source in her rampage" Oct 17, 2021 Did you notice that Manannan67 took the post out saying - "rm sentence tagged unsourced since February 2021" Oct 15, 2021 which I agree with. It appears again that you neglect to even read the reasons we are doing what we are doing. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Create a list together of LP reference standards

This page, the Our Lady of Medjugorje page, and all the other related pages (mentioned before) are under the guidance of Living Persons which is much stricter than the regular Wikipedia page. I propose we study the LP guidelines, and come up with a list of guidelines to evaluate each reference in a neutral way. One by one, step by step. Here is the link to the page: [[35]] "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings [[36]]:
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." [[37]]

Discussion of Medjugorje and the Supernatural

Following the same wikipedia guidelines as above:

The work: Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience, category: Christian literature, type: a scholarly, scientific study of a religious experience.

The creator: Daniel Maria Klimek, Franciscan friar, a writer and scholar. Independent from the Medjugorje apparitions - a secondary source About: Third Order Franciscan friar, writer, and scholar. He is a member of the theological commission of the International Marian Association and has taught as a Lecturer in the School of Franciscan Studies at St. Bonaventure University. He earned his Ph.D. in spirituality with distinction from the Catholic University of America, and received his Master of Arts in Religion from Yale Divinity School. A Theology faculty member of the Franciscan University of Steubenville. His research focuses primarily on Christian mysticism, Mariology, medieval Franciscan spirituality, Radical Orthodoxy, and the hermeneutics, theory, and epistemology of religious experience. I'm particularly interested in the developing relationship between spiritual experience, neuroscience, and psychology.

The publisher: Oxford University Press - Reliable publisher with a long, respected history for editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Reviews

• "Klimek's impressive study manages to bring faith and science into earnest conversation in a manner that is both learned and accessible ... This is an important book for anyone desiring a way to think about religious experience that betrays neither faith nor science." — Luke Timothy Johnson, Commonweal Magazine
• The Journal of Scientific Exploration [[38]]

Peer Reviews:

• "Klimek deals with this need to know about the nature of the phenomenon, which in this case is something quite extraordinary. In particular, he responds to a major and recurrent ploy that aims to undercut the whole phenomenon by pathologizing it." — Michael Grosso, Religious Studies Review
• "Like many past entries into this field, Klimek trains his gaze on the scientific study of religious experience, in this case studies that have been done on the psychology and neuroscience of a small group of visionaries who have, for over thirty years, claimed to see daily apparitions of the Virgin. Mary in the Balkan village of Medjugorje. What makes Klimek's book noteworthy - and ambitious - is his insistence that these studies both prove the authenticity (and supernatural nature) of the events at Medjugorje, and provide a new framework for cooperation between science and religion." —Samuel J. Gee, Reading Religion
• "Daniel Klimek has written a brilliant tour de force with impressive and unimpeachable scholarship. His vast and sound knowledge of primary and secondary sources speaks for itself. Klimek is a seasoned scholar, and this work makes a significant contribution to the field. Given the entrenched academic dogma that religious and mystical experience can be reduced to pathology, this book will be widely discussed and cause quite a stir."—Harvey D. Egan, S.J., Professor Emeritus of Systematic and Mystical Theology, Boston College
• "Medjugorje and the Supernatural comprises a treasure trove of theological-mystical distinctions coupled with scientific-medical facts concerning the most globally discussed apparition of our time—an invaluable contribution to the study of Medjugorje and a must-read for all avid students of this great contemporary Marian event."—Mark Miravalle, Professor of Mariology, Franciscan University of Steubenville
• "A ground-breaking scientific look at the visionary experiences in Medjugorje. The author shows how science and spirituality can work together in illuminating the Truth. An important study for anyone trying to understand supernatural experiences."—Msgr Stephen J. Rossetti, Research Associate Professor, The Catholic University of America

In conclusion: Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience is a reliable, independent, secondary source for this page and for all pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Continuing discussions 10-27-21

Governor Sheng and I have had discussions on many pages regarding sources used on a Living Persons page. I am solely interested that these many pages are neutral and as fact based as possible using secondary reliable sources. No primary source should be used on anything controversial and according to the guidelines should be removed immediately. "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." [[39]] Also editors need to be neutral as well and avoid favoring their own point of view WP:POV in regards to other peoples references but instead should follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

GSheng is reverting edits again without discussing the problem here. We need to talk using the Wikipedia guidelines and then compromise. Instead of reverting, bring a compromise here using the guidelines. The Living Persons guidelines are strict and very clear.[[40]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about The Miracle Detective only

I am using Wikipedia's guidance about sources for Living People and for Reliable Sources.

1) The work - The Miracle Detective - Category: Religion (Christianity) Type: Nonfiction / Investigative
2) The creator - Randall Sullivan an Independent Investigative Journalist - a secondary source

• Sullivan has written for numerous widely recognized publications, which include The Guardian, Esquire, The Washington Post, Wired and Rolling Stone He was an atheist most of his life. "Among his notable works are "The Price of Experience", "Labyrinth" and "The Miracle Detective", all were nominated for Pulitzer Prize."[[41]]
  

3)The publisher of the work - Grove Press, NY - established in 1947 - editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[[42]] Gross Press publishes a variety of books including Biographies, Autobiographies, Historical, Fiction, Nonfiction, Investigative, etc...

• Wikipedia guidance: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". [[43]]
• From the publisher: "In a tiny, dilapidated trailer in northeastern Oregon, a young Mexican woman saw a vision of the Virgin Mary in an ordinary landscape painting hanging on her bedroom wall. After being met with skepticism from the local parish, the Catholic diocese officially placed the matter "under investigation. Investigative journalist Randall Sullivan wanted to know how exactly one might conduct the official inquiry into such an incident and set off to interview "the miracle detectives." These were the theologians, historians, and postulators from the Sacred Congregation of the Causes for Saints who were charged by the Vatican with testing the miraculous and judging the holy. What Sullivan didn't know was that his own investigation would lead from Vatican City in Rome to the tiny village of Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where six visionaries have been receiving apparitions of the Virgin Mary." [[44]]
  

4) Reviews:

• Publisher Weekly - [[45]]
  

Peer reviews:

• The Dubious Disciple by Lee Harmon [[46]]
  
• Kirkus Review [[47]] The Kirkus team [[48]]
  
• Written by Bart McDowell, an award-winning writer and senior editor at National Geographic magazine in Washington for 32 years. The BIO of Bart McDowell [[49]]Review of book [[50]]
  

In regards to Governor Sheng's allegation that Sullivan might be biased, here is guidance from Wikipedia "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." This source meets these requirements. [[51]]
Governor Sheng is saying that this book is a novel. As anyone can see it is not.
In conclusion: The Miracle Detective is a reliable, independent, secondary source for this page and for all pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• • (1) The Kirkus review is absolutely worthless. "...since 1981, the Virgin has regularly appeared to six inhabitants of the little town of Medjugorje." The name of the reviewer does not appear to be indicated, but whoever it is apparently accepts the validity of the apparitions -even tho the Catholic Church, as yet, has not. (Harmon says it's "interesting".)
  • (2) In reference to "The Miracle Detective" being nominated for a Pulitzer. Pulitzer distinguishes between entrants and nominees. Anyone can submit an entry, including the publisher or author. "Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term "nominee" for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was "nominated" for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us."[52] Please note, "The Miracle Detective" does not seem to appear among the lists of nominees.
  • (3) Sullivan ceased to be an "Investigative Journalist" the minute he had his claimed "vision"; at that point he becomes a participant. He wrote a personal "conversion story" and typical of the genre, everything is directed to validating that choice. (It should come as no surprise, then, that some Catholic commentators applaud the book.) It doesn't matter who his publisher may be, the author himself cannot be considered "independent". Bart McDowell calls "The Miracle Detective" a subjective spiritual quest. "The Miracle Detective" is NOT a reliable source for information on Medjugorje, and should be used, if at all, sparingly, and only regarding the most uncontroversial material. Manannan67 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• (1) there are more reviews that can be brought here but I encourage you to look for others.
• (2) Let's not throw the "baby out with the bath water." Up until he had a vision of Our Lady he was investigating and an atheist at the same time. He has written other investigative works and this time chose to look into miracles this time around. We should use the information uncovered before his own vision.
• (3) please provide the link to Bart McDowell's review. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Nope. The book was written after he had his vision/experience and therefore colors his perception and interpretation of everything that went before.
• (2) YOU posted the bloody link above. Manannan67 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing primary sources and their words of controversial edits

Articles on WP must be written principally using reliable, independent, secondary sources. Please see the strict rules for use of primary sources before seeking to use the following. This is especially important because a lot of people mentioned are still alive so that the "extreme caution" about using primary sources for BLP related material applies. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY.

• (1) Ratko Perić - all of his books about Medjugorje are a primary source - He was not independent and was a primary source who had negative feelings toward the visions - he was the BISHOP overseeing Medjugorje and these "books" were published by his publisher - Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar google translated to Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar. (see the OLM Talk page for all the details)
• (2) Pavao Žanić - all of his books about Medjugorje are a primary source - He was not independent from Medjugorje - he was the BISHOP overseeing Medjugorje and was known for his antagonism towards the visions and his books were published by his publisher - Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar google translated to Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar.
• (3) Kutlesa - Another primary source - He was not independent from Medjugorje because when he edited and compiled Ogledalo Pravde, he was a clerk under Bishop Peric who asked him to do it. (See the details on the OLM talk page)
• (4) Nikola Bulat- primary source. He was not independent because he was invited by the Bishop to join the commission evaluating the alleged visions of Our Lady of Medjugorje. Translated from his book "Don Nikola Bulat, priest of the Split-Makarska Archdiocese, was a member of the extended Bishops' Commission for the Examination of Events in Medjugorje, 1984-1986.age. At the suggestion of msgr. Pavle Zanic, Bishop of Mostar (1980-1993)" - ISTINA ĆE VAS OSLOBODITI translated as The Truth will free you. 1986
• (5) Mato Zovkić - He is not independent and a primary source because he was invited by Bishop Zanic to join the commission evaluating the alleged visions of Our Lady of Medjugorje. From his book PROBLEMATIC ELEMENTS IN THE PHENOMENON OF MEDJUGORJE DR. MATO ZOVK1Ć on page 77 translated = "... the Bishop of Mostar, Pavao Zanic, appointed me as a member of the Bishops' Commission for the Investigation of Events." [[53]] I corrected the spelling of Medjugorje

We need to treat every primary source the same.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher...Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD There are limitations in what primary sources can be used for, and any use should be clearly attributed. Both Žanić and Perić are fine for giving the position of the Diocese of Mostar, and their rationale for arriving at such; as well as, any documents issued by the Diocese. Manannan67 (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that you have not read my detailed explanations on the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page about these sources and why they cannot be used on this page for controversial statements. Obviously it is not just about them being primary sources. This page as well as the OLM are both dealing with people who are alive so the living persons guidelines also come into play. There are 6 live visionaries as well as clergy discussed on the OLM page including Zovko as well. The Living Person guidelines pertain here. WP:BLPWP:Publicfigure Also they both self-publish using their own publisher which is overseen by them - Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar. I cannot rewrite or copy and paste ever detail here. Please read it all on the talk page there. I have been editing for about 10 years now and studied the guidelines a great deal. Primary sources on LP pages cannot be used for controversial statements. Both Zanic & Peric are not neutral and in their own books express their own viewpoint on the subject. The OLM pages are full of controversial statements from these biased opinionated sources. Gossip is even expressed. Also any controversial information from the Diocese should come from a secondary source that is removed from Diocese. This is what Wikipedia expects. If we use these sources at all, it has to be completely neutral, factual information along with attribution. Articles on WP must be written principally using reliable, independent, secondary sources. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You read but you do not understand. Your interpretation of the guidelines is precisely what is flagged in WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD . It's unfortunate that you are unable to grasp that. Zanic & Peric do not have to be neutral, nor would you expect them to be in stating their own opinions. Both can be used with care. Manannan67 (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you but I do understand but I am not sure you are understanding that unnecessary controversial posts are on these pages and that it is not being handled with care or with neutrality. Perhaps you have not been able to read it all. It is not just Peric and Zanic but the three that I have mentioned as well. These pages need to be cleaned up from an excess of controversial postings. The OLM page is completely out of balance. So I assume that the same policy applies to key figures and authors who have an opposite opinion, correct? My goal is to bring this page to a balanced, neutral page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Complete BALDERDASH! You are the one insisting on littering the page with totally unsubstantiated claims of private conversations. The nice thing about their being private is that there is no way to verify them, yet the JPII section has no less than EIGHT. Did Benedict never have any private conversations or are you only interested in those that endorse the so-called apparitions -balance?! Manannan67 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of things. It does no good. Let's find common ground to bring balance to these pages. I have researched for comments from Benedict and Francis but I have found hardly any so far. The OLM page was created back in 2008 and I began editing on this page last year. My intent is to bring neutral, balanced truth to this page of which involves studying Wikipedia guidelines and to be open to the reasonable, unemotional suggestions of my fellow editors. Discernment plays its roll when some editors have an agenda to support a particular point of view but deny it. It needs to be addressed anyway.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Zovko meeting with John Paul II

Much is made of an alleged meeting between Zovko and JPII. The source cited is Klimek who is admittedly well-versed on the study of religious experience, but whose reportage leaves much to be desired. Presumably Klimak got this from Zovko (?), which would make it at the very least self-serving. It is also second-hand hearsay. On the day in question, JPII had just returned from Africa. He held a general audience at which he discussed his trip, greeted the Italian Lions Club and thanked someone for a bicycle. It's possible Zovko was in attendance, as he had lots of free time in as much as he was still suspended at that time. It's highly unlikely JPII would have met with any priest under suspension as that would both undermine the bishop and complicate things with any congregation/dicastery that might review the suspension. -Unless, of course, he didn't know who Zovko was other than "some priest from Medjugorje". While it may be true Klimek wrote this, and that Zovko told him this, the credibility of someone suspended by two different bishops isn't all that impressive. Unfortunately, wikipedia deals in verifiability rather than truthful statements. Nonetheless, this raises too many questions to be taken at face value, which is what Klimek apparently did, but then he's more into the interpretation of religious experience then mundane facts. Manannan67 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion but the fact is Zovko did meet with the pope and here is visual proof.[[54]] You are right it is clear Klimek wrote this and Zovko told him about this. Klimek is the secondary source. The publisher is known as a reliable publisher with a long, respected history for editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So I am sure the fact was checked. As said by a review "Klimek's impressive study manages to bring faith and science into earnest conversation in a manner that is both learned and accessible ... This is an important book for anyone desiring a way to think about religious experience that betrays neither faith nor science." Again read my posts on the OLM page. Wikipedia is not written by the editors opinions but Wikipedia expects all sides of the issues to be present on each page not just the view you think is most important or valid. If Wikipedia didn't do that, no readers would ever trust Wikipedia. All views need to be expressed with mostly secondary reliable sources and then the reader decides, not you or I. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has now spread over two pages. As Zovko is only notable due to his connection with OLM, I shall respond there. Manannan67 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have already clearly written down why Klimek is a reliable, secondary source for these pages. I think you might be missing the point of secondary sources on pages like these. ANY RELIABLE secondary source can be used on these pages. You might not like a source for any number of reasons but that does not matter one bit. The problem on these pages are sources that are primary being used for controversial postings. It seems to me you use your own personal preferences in your arguments rather than the wikipedia guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And it looks to me that you are misinterpreting those guidelines to suit your own purpose. The salient word is "reliable". The photo proves nothing. Published ten years after the fact, with no indication where or when or by whom it was taken other than Zovko claims, much less what may or may not have been said. Another private conversation. The New York Post would be more credible.Manannan67 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes Klimek's book is reliable and I have already shown that plus it has already been approved for this page. The photo of Zovko meeting with John Paul II was clearly in 1992 and the Vercernji List has already been established as a reliable source for this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Approved by whom? Did I miss some imprimatur? Manannan67 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't reliable. It received a mixed review, positive on its philosophical part, negative on its historicity (see Peter Jan Margry). Red Rose thinks someone actually has authority here to approve sources... Jesus Christ... --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already presented the wikipedia guidelines on what a reliable source on the OLM page probably now in the archives. I have done it repeatedly. Then I used the guidelines in regards to Klimeks book and others. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Structure of this page is off balance

@Governor Sheng:
The structure should be more like this:

• 1. Biography Early life and education
• 2. Marian Apparition in Medjugorje
• 3. Communist Authorities
• 4. Suspension
• 5. After leaving Medjugorje
• 6. In fiction
  

There is not one thing more important over the other.
Also I notice that he is the priest at Badija and has been here since 2009. [[55]]
And - "The decision of the Holy See states that the sentence imposed on Fr. Jozo Zovko is confirmed until Fr. Jozo moves to a "convento lontano da Medjugorje" - a monastery far from Medjugorje." Well he moved there in 2009 so I rightly assume suspension ended in 2009. Your thoughts? Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel that there are a few things we need to understand first. (1) Zovko is still suspended, as his suspension is valid on the territory of the Mostar-Duvno diocese. (2) Since he was ordained as a priest for the territory of the particular diocese, I'm not aware that he was received into another diocese so far (maybe I'm wrong). As far as I'm aware, he lives in a friary of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina located in Zagreb (the friary is owned by the Herzegovinian Franciscans). (3) His bishop was and still is the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno and who still has jurisdiction over him, no matter if he's in Zagreb or Badija or elsewhere. (4) After 1990, Bishop Perić issued another sanction against him in 1994, forbidding him to perform confessions as well. In 2004, he was forbidden to perform all priestly duties in the said diocese. (5) Zovko living in other places is just a consequence of his suspension. (6) In conclusion he is still under suspension, that's why he lives outside his home diocese. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Then the next step is present what is true using secondary sources which is not an easy task. Clearly the Badija website shows him as the Priest. I understand that Badija was giving to the Franciscans for 99 years and he was given the task of refurbishing it because when he went there it was not suitable to live in. Now he oversees it. You can see he now has gray hair in the photo at Badija. Do you have secondary sources about him?Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The bishop who suspended him, writing about how he suspended him isn't credible? I don't know the circumstances behind the photos taken in Badija. Maybe he got permission from the local bishop, and maybe he hasn't. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/fra-jozo-zovko-sluzit-ce-mise-u-zagrebu-150480 link provides some information. I'm not sure about his current status. What we can be sure is he cannot perform priestly duties in the two Herzegovinian dioceses. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This source looks like a blog and in the very first sentence it says According to unofficial information - I think we should remove this section until we find a good solid source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's Slobodna Dalmacija, one of the most read newspapers in Croatia actually. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So, the Suspension section should encompass his career until he left for Badija in 2008, I think. And then we can make a separate section... --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is what is says in that section - the Franciscan Province of St. Jerome turned over the friary and island of Badija in Croatia to the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin Mary for a term of 99 years. So he didn't leave Herzegovina because Badija belongs to them.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a lease, not a transfer of ownership. The location is what matters. Zovko is currently in Zagreb, and though the friary he lives in is owned by the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina, they don't have jurisdiction over it. Perić's diocese might have bought the Cathedral in Koln, but that wouldn't expand his jurisdiction there, the episcopal jurisdiction that is. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that that he lives in the friary in Zagreb (reference please) and that is owned by Franciscan Province of Herzegovina (reference please) but the Herzegovina Franciscans don't have jurisdiction over it (reference please) It doesn't make sense to me, sorry. Please explain further.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Some things are common sense. The Archbishop of Zagreb is the supreme priest in his archdiocese, including the Franciscan friary in Zagreb. You have said sources in the article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No there are not sources in the article that are reliable regarding (1) where he lives now, and no sources regarding(2) that the friary in Zagreb is owned by Franciscan Province of Herzegovina, (3) the Archbishop of Zagreb is the supreme priest in his archdiocese, including the Franciscan friary in Zagreb and (4) who has jurisdiction over Badija. We also need to know Zovko's history from 2005 - 2022. Any thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a source, an article from Slobodna Dalmacija. It's in the article. Who owns the friary is really irrelevant. Why are we having discussions about that? If you want to know who has jurisdiction, read the Canon law and see the boundaries between the dioceses. Episcopal jurisdictions are territorial in the Catholic Church. The only existing personal prelature is Opus Dei. So this is really a no-brainer. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I found what I needed (2sources) and placed it on the page. Zovko goes back and forth between Zagreb and Badija. Onward if finding more sources. It is ok to know this information but we need to find the sources to back it up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, good. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion as of June 11

After looking over the condition of Badija before and during the restoration [[56]] it seems to me that he couldn't live there and probably oversaw the restoration but didn't live there quite yet. There is probably a reference that explains it all. It is possible that he was unable to live there until 2009.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

He lives in Zagreb, it's a fact. Do you dispute that or? I'm not following you exactly... --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The reference used here is questionable. First it starts off by saying, "According to unofficial information, Jozo Zovko..." and it was written in 2011 which is eleven years ago. I think we need to find a better source explaining where he is living and something to cover the time period from 2005 to the present. Secondly Badija was in a horrible condition and I am not sure anyone could live there during the beginning of the restoration, take a look at the restoration pictures from their website. There are many unanswered questions and no proof that he refused to move there in 2005. Do you have any other sources?

This section - In 2005, the Franciscan Province of Dalmatia turned over the friary and island of Badija in Croatia to the Herzegovinian Franciscan Province for a term of 99 years.
I originally wrote: In 2005, the Franciscan Province of St. Jerome turned over the friary and island of Badija in Croatia to the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin Mary for a term of 99 years.
(1) Why did you change it to Dalmatia when the source says St. Jerome?
and
(2) Why did you change the words: Franciscan Province of Herzegovina of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Herzegovinian Franciscan Province. The full name should be there and this is the name the source gives. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME. Again, things you think are rules aren't actually the rules. I see where your problem is. You think you should c/p the sources verbatim. This is plagiarism, that's why other editors advised you to make attributions to the sources. Are you able to paraphrase what the source says in your own words or not? I can do so. So, no need for attributions, no need for verbatim c/p. Play with the sources a little bit, it's fun. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I know how to reword the words from a source. All you have to do is look at any of my edits. I am only referring to the name of the Province. Thank you for the Commonname link. You still haven't addressed why you changed the name from St. Jerome to Dalmatia. St. Jerome came directly from the source. Please explain.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I did. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I just reread this discussion and I don't see the explanation. Please copy and paste it here. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Per WP:COMMONNAME". --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see for some strange illogical reason that call St Jerome province Dalmatia. It is mystery to meRed Rose 13 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Franciscan Province of Dalmatia has 4 scholarly results, and the Franciscan Province of Saint Jerome has 2 scholarly results. This is the great logic behind it. The same reason the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin Mary is referred to simply as the Franciscan Province of Herzegvine. They're the same. You're lacking basic knowledge about the things you discuss.

P.S. One of the many unnecessary discussions we're having because of a lack of basic knowledge. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is why there are many editors on Wikipedia. There are many things that I have explained and taught you as well and was surprised at your lack of knowledge. It is a team effort. We have many discussion and we are educating each other in the process. I have seen this all over wikipedia. Again it is a team effort.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That aside, creating a fuss over shortening a name is just bizzare. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't about shortening but completely changing the name. Are you now being critical? It is bizarre to me that I have to repeat constantly certain key facts that you ignore. I have to look at every single reference to uncover any bias or distortions and then correct. It is exhausting to say the least. I am still waiting for the link to Perić, Ratko (2012). "Međugorske stranputice" [The Medjugorje side roads]. Službeni vjesnik (in Croatian) (3): 97–102 for the OLM page. This is a primary source and we need a link to this article or whatever it is.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Googling will do the trick. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Since it is a reference that you used, it is up to you find the link, not me. I did do some searching but couldn't find it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

All necessary data a ref requires is there. My job is done. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)