Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Klimek or Sullivan?

"According to investigative journalist Randall Sullivan, John Paul II received the nickname “Protector of Medjugorje” in Vatican circles as it was common knowledge in the Holy See that he loved Medjugorje. --- You quote Sullivan but cite Klimek. Which is it? It is still a useless statement. He probably loved perogies as well. It contributes nothing to indicate why or what specifically there was about it that he particularly liked. That is rather important considering the fact that both bishops did not. Manannan67 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here and I just read the reference and sentence you found and I agree it is the better sentence. I just took out the Klimek sentence.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. Even tho the sentence has been partially resolved. I'm posting this anyway to explain my rationale re Klimek. I agree with User:Governor Sheng that Klimek should not be used for contentious claims.

You invoke publishers like some talisman. Margry observed "This raises the question of why the press decided to publish an apologetic rather than traditionally scholarly work." (N.B. It is not a "traditional scholarly work".) This isn't about OUP. Clearly you have not read the book except to harvest convenient lines -which do not pertain to his area of expertise. It is not really about Medjugorje, but about the hermeneutics, theory, and epistemology of religious experience. A good deal of it discusses William James and Ann Taves. His thesis is that modern scholarship tends not to allow for the possibility of the supernatural, an approach to which he is naturally opposed. Anything he might have to contribute in that respect regarding Medjugorje might be interesting, but he is not someone to rely on regarding alleged conversations to which he was not a party. Klimek's use of Zovko is akin to Velikonja's use of Bart, whom you so strongly supported until I gave you the link to his page.

As for "...it was common knowledge in the Holy See that he loved Medjugorje.": "loved" conveys what? -an appreciation of the souvenir shops? "It was common knowledge, that the Pope was sympathetic to this Marian site." is both more accurate and better sourced. It also allows for expansion. JPII's position re Medjugorje was a bit more complicated and nuanced than a clutter of unverifiable rumored remarks indicate. Manannan67 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I am going to finish this discussion on the Jozo Zovko page. Moving it here right in the middle of a discussion is not helpful.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok I finished our conversation on Zovko talk page and am ready to begin a new discussion. I will not tolerate being lectured to or accused of things from any editor. If you want to have a civil discussion, then I am open to that. Feel free to start over.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Secrets?

The "Biographies of the assumed seers" contain references to revealed secrets (e.g., "She claims all ten secrets were given to her", "She says she...was given nine secrets from the Gospa", "He claims that Gospa told him the tenth secret", etc), but these are neither described nor even mentioned elsewhere in the article. Details please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.125.175 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I will work on it. But just so know in my researching, the secrets have not be revealed yet.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Croat nationalism section

Hi there was wondering why you felt it necessary to bring this section from the town Medjugorje page? How does this relate to the alleged visions?Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Almost every bona fide academic who has written on Medjugorje has at least touched upon the socio-political context. Many books have focused primarily on that, and the connections between various factions, not to mention money. Anyone who doesn't see that, sees only a very small part of the picture.

• Budde, Michael L., "The Croatian Catholic Nationalism and the Case of Medjugorje", Beyond the Borders of Baptism: Catholicity, Allegiances, and Lived Identities United States, Cascade Books, 2016.
• Grandits, Hannes. "The Power of “Armchair” Politicians: Ethnic Loyalty and Political Factionalism among Herzegovinian Croats", The New Bosnian Mosaic. Identities, Memories and Moral Claims, (X. Bougarel, G. Duijzings, E. Helms, eds.), Routledge, New York, 2016.
• Herrero, Juan A. (1999). "Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division". In Joanne M. Greer, David O. Moberg (ed.). Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion. Stamford, Connecticut: JAI Press. pp. 143–144. ISBN 0762304839.
• Perica, Vjekoslav (2002). Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517429-8.
• Velikonja, Mitja (2003). Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Texas, USA: Texas A&M University Press. p. 208. ISBN 9781603447249.
• Vjekoslav Perica (2004). "The Apparitions in Herzegovina and the Yugoslav Crisis of the 1980s", Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States. Oxford University Press. pp. 117–118 Manannan67 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering if a couple of sentences couldn't be put in the Political section under Background and then link to the Medjugorje page for the bulk of the information? We are trying to keep the page organized and streamlined. What do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No. While you are apparently focused on substantiating the alleged "apparitions" you loose sight of the fact that Medjugorje is a stew of complicated history, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, anti-communism, Croat nationalism, ecclesiastical discipline, Vatican diplomacy, and money; lots and lots of money. Why do you think the authors listed above each found so much to write about? Discussion of any/or all of these aspects has more verifiable intellectual integrity than all those rumored private conversations of which you are so fond. If you want the page "organized and streamlined, then cut them; and while you're at it, splitting the biographies of the so-called "seers" to a separate page would clean up a lot. Neither Labouré, Calvat, Giraud, Soubirous, nor Santos are covered on the respective apparition page. Ivanka and company could all go on one. Manannan67 (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if you would consider stopping accusing me of something every time you write? Two people can communicate civilly even though they don't agree on everything. Well we agree that the alleged seers section could be shrunk down dramatically. Like I said I didn't write most of this. Because the seers are a main part of this page, I think a few sentences on each one is necessary but not much more. I do think a photo of each one would be good for the page. I will take on the task of shrinking it down. We can also link to other apparitions pages and I can work on that as well. Those private conversations were not rumors but came directly from the persons involved.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Since they were all private, how can any be verified? Manannan67 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

When using a reference and when it is determined to be reliable, we trust the publisher in its fact checking.

I cleaned up the assumed seer section the best I could. I am unable find photos of 4 of the seers that can be used. Let me know if you know how to find one that is approved by Wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"When using a reference and when it is determined to be reliable, we trust the publisher in its fact checking." - Seriously?!?! Time for a reality check. Publishers are in the business of selling books. I could sell a telephone directory if it said Medjugorge on the cover. Others, like Queenship and its ilk are directed to proselytizing its views on such subjects as "The Lady of All Nations", etc. That is half the problem with this page. Blind acceptance of unsubstantiated statements. Manannan67 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on this foundation of only using reliable sources. Slp1 pointed this out repeatedly that reliable sources are known for their fact checking but perhaps you didn't read our discussions. I am not sure how you came up with Queenship in this discussion. The publisher Rizzoli New York with the author Slawomir Oder is one of the main sources in this section. And I agree blind acceptance of the primary, biased, opinionated source Ogledalo pravde edited by the clerk working for Bishop Peric, who openly despised the seers is ridiculous. I agree with your new statements to this page. This page is skewed by this book and if you review Slp1's rough draft [1] you will see it is not on the page. This book should only be used for neutral facts and nothing else. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion as of 11/2/21

I am slowly continuing to correct all the references to the formatting that was used originally with this page as agreed upon previously.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you would prefer to have each source listed multiple times in the bibliography rather than using short footnotes, but if you do then I am certainly not going to stop you! I only edited the article to fix the sfn errors that you had (temporarily, by the sounds of it) introduced. Thanks Wham2001 (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason is the page numbers. This is a controversial page so each reference needs to be easy to verify. Thanks for your help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

...you do know that you can include page numbers in short footnotes? The principal point of using them is to refer to a source multiple times, where you want to refer to different pages each time. Wham2001 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess I don't know about short footnotes - do you have a link for that?Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, like a lot of things on Wikipedia the documentation is rather fragmented and hard to find. This help page seems like the right place to start, and Template:Sfn gives comprehensive instructions on how to use the template (and a list of alternative templates that produce different styling). Fascism is an example of an article that uses short footnotes extensively. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll check it out.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am working on removing statements from not independent, contentious, opinionated, self-published biased sources when used for other than for factual statements like when a person was born, who they married etc... Please see Slp1 rough draft that cleared out a tremendous amount of this stuff [2]. I agree with your new statements at the top of the page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am also working on reading each reference which includes google translating books written in Croatian to verify accuracy. If what is written in this article is not true based on this, I am correcting it to match what it says in the reference. I am also looking in other books for accuracy in comparing to sources too close to the apparitions. If it is a controversial statement using a primary biased, opinionated source and no other reference says it, I am removing the words.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Manannan67: I think it is your duty to explain your issues, if you are going to keep adding new issues to this page. I really don't know what you are talking about. Please give me the courtesy of a civil explanation. I have written my objections.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made my position abundantly clear more than once. Whenever I occasionally come across this page, it is manifestly worse than previously. Despite your protests to the contrary, there is no collaborative editing with this article, (or on any other pertaining to Medjugorge) and it is clear that nothing is going to change. Manannan67 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I cannot control others and if there is no one here willing to work collaboratively, I can do nothing about it. In general you have communicated your thoughts and I have communicated mine. Then you put these issues on the top of the page, without giving specifics of problems you see. I think the editor placing them should be specific about the complaint. It is impossible to address any issues without including specifics. What I am doing is bringing a balance back to the page. I am not aware of doing anything wrong on this page. So if you see something that needs correcting, let me know. Like I said I read ALL of the references and when I find an error for example: a biased source said that the seers had a vision of Ivan on a certain day. Being controversial, I looked in other books to corroborate/back up the statement and it did not exist. So I removed it. Perhaps what I need to do is communicate more about what I am discovering. Be specific about what you perceive as worse so we can improve the page together.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion as of 12/16/21

I am going through the whole article and reading every single reference, making sure that what it says in the reference and is what is said in the article. If it is different, I am correcting it. Ex. today I translated pages of the Milijuni_na_putu_Antropologija_hodocasca - Millions on the Road and discovered that what was written on the page was different from the reference so I corrected it.
Words in reference vs words on the page:
Original words on the page:
(1) The state-owned publishing houses issued books of the supporters of Medjugorje, including Ljudevit Rupčić's book The Madonna's apparitions in Medjugorje (Croatian: Gospina ukazanja u Međugorju) in 1983.
Actual words in reference:
(2) State publishing house A. G. Matos from Samobor in 1983 published a book of Our Lady's apparitions in Medjugorje by Ljudevit Rupčić, theologian and Herzegovinian Franciscan loyal to Medjugorje.
There was no mention of them publishing other books of the supporters of Medjugorje. This inaccuracy - is it considered POV or Original Research or? Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I am slowly correcting references as I go.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion as of 1/7/22

Today I have updated this page using the book Our Lady of the Nations by Chris Maunder, already established as an excellent, reliable source. I removed primary sources as necessary by using this secondary source. Corrected some misinformation of another editor using this source. As I have said before I am reading every single reference being sure the information is accurately being written here. Please feel free to point out any of my unintended errors here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring the Commission section. I reorganized the section to bring clarity, reformatted references to match the page, checking every single reference for accuracy and corrected the words it when inaccuracy was found. Brought in more information to complete the Ruini commission section. Still need to find who took Hosers place since he recently died of covid. I still have a few more references to check.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I found the person replacing Hoser and posted it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I am finding many distortions from the references used on this page. When I find it, I correct it. Here is one example in the first paragraph to Economic Impact.

Original sentence:

Although the Yugoslav authorities initially regarded the events as little more than a conspiracy on the part of Bosnian Croat nationalists, gradually "the cash-strapped Yugoslav authorities realized the commercial potential of Medjugorje."

Corrected sentence:

Although the Yugoslav authorities initially regarded the apparitions as little more than a conspiracy on the part of Croat extremists, gradually "the cash-strapped Yugoslav authorities realized the commercial potential of Medjugorje."

I am finding many discrepancies - should I write them all here? Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Today I am clearing out controversial, biased statements from a primary, biased, opinionated source Ogledalo pravde edited by the clerk working for Bishop Peric, who openly despised the seers. This source can only be used for basic data like birth dates.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Also I discovered that the source used of Zovkic was from "Zagreb 1993 Number 1-2 R.M. Perié, Rebié, Biškup, Contribution of Croatian Bishops to Marioology at the Second Vatican Council" https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/56597

Therefore, the source from Zovkic is a primary source as being a member of the commission investigating Medjugorje. This cannot be used for controversial statements.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The section called controversial apparitions and messages - the only source is from Nikola Bulat, a member of the commission that examined the apparitions. This would make him a primary source on the subject. The only thing we can keep on Wikipedia are his factual statements, not opinions or conclusions. A secondary source is necessary here. I removed the section and moved some statements to Vicka's section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned up Pope John Paul II section - removed primary biased sources and their statements and kept secondary sources statements.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Worked on the "Ruini Commission - the international Vatican Commission, 2010–2014" section. Using the sources already there to add in important information that was left out. Also structured the section in date order and subject order to bring clarity.
Example of leaving info out - #1 is what was on the page and #2 is what I found from the source.:
(1) In the first phase, they disregarded the behavior of the seers
(2) Firstly they focused on the spiritual fruits of Medjugorje but putting aside the behaviors of the seers.
I am finding this happens often on this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Crap

This is just bullshiting...

"In 2010, during the Catechesis of Pope Benedict XVI, in General Audience on Wednesday, December 1, 2010, in the Paul VI Hall, he addressed the Croatian pilgrims who were present, translated to English:

Pope's greetings to Croatian pilgrims in Croatian:
I heartily greet all Croatian pilgrims, especially the faithful from the parish of St. James in Medjugorje! Your pilgrimage to Rome is part of the journey of preparation for the coming of the Lord. Therefore, in hope, be heralds of God’s love in your people. Praised Jesus and Mary!

Benedict XVI regarded Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar as the greatest theologian of the 20th century. Balthasar said, “The theology of Medjugorje rings true. I am convinced of its truth. Everything concerning Medjugorje is authentic from a Catholic point of view.”"

The pope having an opinion of a theologian doesn't in any way give away his stance on Medjugorje. If I like Joe, and Joe likes scat porn, that doesn't mean I prefer it. This whole section is just nonsensical and that's why it needs to be deleted. It doesn't say actually anything. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion as of 2/3/22

Working on references now starting at the very beginning. Cleaning up as I go and if the source is not in the list at the end, I am adding it. Also reformatting any references that have not been updated. Also, I am organizing the reference lists. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Focused today on the section Croat Nationalism - reading all the references thoroughly then adding things that were missing or corrected the page to match what is in the reference. Worked on providing balance to the page pulling from the reference provided. I am discovering on this page many slants toward a viewpoint rather than showing the whole picture.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am only open to a (a) civil conversation (b) using wikipedia guidelines as the foundation, not personal opinions.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 February 2022

Under "Skepticism", change:

the author E. Michael Jones is antagonist towards Medjugorje, is not objective and "presents a conspiracy theory rather than a thorough analysis."

to

the author E. Michael Jones is antagonistic towards Medjugorje, is not objective, and "presents a conspiracy theory rather than a thorough analysis."

This corrects a word and adds an Oxford comma where it belongs. CaptWilliamBlade (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. It is a problematic sentence in other ways, but that will have to be dealt with later.Slp1 (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible references for supporters (moved here from previous section)

Here is what I found on three supporters so far, in the books listed below:

Archbishop Franic of Split & Rene Laurentin

Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion V. 10, Our Lady of the Nations, A Miracle Detective, Medjugorje and the Supernatural

Father Robert Faricy, Gregorian University Professor and Sister Lucy Rooney

Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion V. 10, A Miracle Detective, Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States
Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have moved these here. It is best to discuss this later.Slp1 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I worked on this section, cleaning out, moving statements, finding references and placing citation needed to give me time to research more. Plan to add the above supporters as I have time.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Édit warring

I have protected this article for a week due to horrendous edit warring. You are lucky that I didn’t block people instead. Sort out your disagreements here. --Slp1 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Slp1, so nice to hear from you. I have encouraged and am all for talking about any issues on the talk page but I don't see them ever resolving without a mentor. Are you interested in helping sort out these disagreements? My focus is to follow the Wikipedia guidelines with everything. If we do that, there should be no disagreements. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid it is obvious to all concerned that neither of you are interested in talking. Section after section above is the two of you (but mostly you, Red Rose) making pronouncements/comments with zero response from the other - there is no attempt no consensus building happening.

I tried to mentor you, but it was impossible, and I am not trying that again. I am now in administrator mode and it is my duty to inform you that if you don't change your approach very quickly, it is likely that one or both of you will end up getting blocked and/or topic banned from this and related pages. Please see WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and more especially the suggestions about how to pull back from the brink.

Red Rose 13. You say that you are interested in following guidelines and policies. Good. Here is a chance to really show that by reflecting on these recent edits of yours and explaining what is wrong with them. [3] [4] [5]. Hint: WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:PSTS, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:PLAGIARISMetc etc Slp1 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback because I know I have a lot to learn on Wikipedia... it seems never ending. Recently I searched high and low for a mentor for myself and the page. I had one, years ago, who was wonderful and taught me as we edited together. There was no guilt or shaming just teaching. He is semi retired now. My intention is to do what is best for the readers of Wikipedia. Honestly, I am willing to collaborate to the best of my ability that is why I wrote on the talk page what I was doing. I was hoping for an expert to correct and collaborate with. In regards to your suggestions or advice, I will take it seriously and study each hint. Feel free to teach me if I don't understand. I will respond as I can.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

After a certain point it is time to be independent here. I am sorry to say that there is a lot wrong with those edits, including concepts I went over a LOT in the past. Others cannot be expected to clean up your work for you. It’s too time consuming and, as you have seen, it leads to problems. It’s time to show that what you have learned by identifying the issues yourself. I look forward to seeing what you identify as soon as you are ready. Slp1 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is my first assessment, please feel free to correct me.

1. Quote from page: Our Lady of Medjugorje attracted a vast international following that included many members of the Catholic hierarchy, among them Pope John Paul II

Exact quote: Our Lady of Medjugorje attracted a vast international following that included many members of the Catholic hierarchy, among them Pope John Paul II

Rewritten: According to Robert Orsi in his book History and Presence, Our Lady of Medjugorje sparked interest internationally including with members of the Catholic clergy, among them Pope John Paul II.

Lessons learned: Copyright issue – plagiarism - give attribution and rewrite

2. Quote from page: It was common knowledge, that the Pope was sympathetic to this Marian site

Exact quote: In line with Roman Catholic tradition, Pope John Paul II considers the Medjugorje phenomenon an issue for the local hierarchy. It is, however, common knowledge, that the Pope is sympathetic to the Marian site

Rewritten: According to Antonio Gaspari of Inside the Vatican, John Paul II in the Roman Catholic tradition, leaves the decision about the Medjugorje apparition to the local clergy. At the same time it is commonly known that he is sympathetic to the Medjugorje Marian site.

Lessons learned: (cross out WP:SYN) – Copyright issue plagiarism

3. Quote from page: seeing it as a continuation of Fatima in the battle with communism

Exact quote: seeing it as a continuation of Fatima in the battle with communism

Lessons learned: WP:SYN – this was attached to another sentence. copyright issue - plagiarism

Also this is already in another place on this page and should be removed from here.

4. Quote from page: "As the pilgrimage site acquired its national and international reputation, it became a powerful symbol of the power of religion against the Communist Yugoslav regime."

Exact quote: "As the pilgrimage site acquired its national and international reputation, it became a powerful symbol of the power of religion against the Communist Yugoslav regime."

Rewritten: According to Michael Budde in his book Beyond the Borders of Baptism Catholicity, Allegiances, and Lived Identities, as it gained a national and international reputation, the Medjugorje pilgrimage site became a formidable symbol of the power of religion in the fight against the Communist Yugoslav regime. "

Lessons Learned: Copyright issue - plagiarism and needs attribution. Also this needs to be placed in another location on the page

Thank youRed Rose 13 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This is what I am suggesting stay on the page.

According to Robert Orsi in his book History and Presence, Our Lady of Medjugorje sparked interest internationally including with members of the Catholic clergy, among them Pope John Paul II. According to Antonio Gaspari of Inside the Vatican, John Paul II in the Roman Catholic tradition, leaves the decision about the Medjugorje apparition to the local clergy. At the same time it is commonly known that he is sympathetic to the Medjugorje Marian site.

I remember our discussions on attribution but I don't think it is necessary here, however since this page is controversial perhaps it is best to do it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a good start for noticing the flagrant plagiarism. You must not copy and paste text as you did. You must rewrite text in your own words. If you do not rewrite it, you must put it in quotes and give attribution. Your proposed rewrite still misunderstands what is needed. You do not need to attribute every sentence. Only ones where you have directly quoted text, or where somebody is giving their opinion.

You mention that there is WP:SYNT in your original texts above but don't explain what it was. --Slp1 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Second Assessment

Regarding the quote from Pope Benedict VI - I was assuming that the Vatican was a reliable source but after rereading the guidelines, it appears to be a primary source even if very reliable. The next step is to find a secondary source. It has been difficult finding any information about Medjugorje from Pope Benedict.

Regarding the quote - Benedict XVI regarded Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar as the greatest theologian of the 20th century. Balthasar said, “The theology of Medjugorje rings true. I am convinced of its truth. Everything concerning Medjugorje is authentic from a Catholic point of view.” This is an error in Synthesis. Balthasar quote should be a stand alone in a different location.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, the Pope Benedict VI quote is an obvious primary source and a secondary source is needed. If it is hard to find a reliable secondary source about Benedict and then, per WP:UNDUE, it doesn't get included at all. That's why I emphasized that you need to start from the reliable secondary sources. Stop looking for weak sources to fill in gaps.

Yes, what you did there, to try to pad out a section on Benedict with the opinion of somebody else, was obvious WP:SYNTH. If Cardinal Balthasar is really important, maybe the quote should be included, but I doubt it. See below.--Slp1 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Third Assessment

The section Supporters. (1) Let me explain my thinking. One of the things I am always evaluating, is the page I am working on balanced and are all views represented as suggested by Wikipedia. There was a section on Skepticism and I wondered how to balance that so I created a section on Supporters to bring balance. Is there a problem? (2) the quotes from Gabriele Amorth are from an actual interview that was recorded but again I see the error on Wikipedia. This again is a primary source. Hearing the actuals words coming from his mouth is not enough, we need a secondary source that discusses and evaluates it. So the solution is to find that source. (3) The Balthasar quote - synthesis - need to remove words that include Pope Benedict. (4) The sentence about Schönborn needs to be removed because as a reader we still don't know if he supports Medjugorje it is just implied. Did I miss something?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I should add WP:NPOV and in particular WP:UNDUE to the list of policies to read and inwardly digest. Balance is based on - guess what- what is written in the reliable secondary sources. We balance articles about Global Warming or Homeopathy based on what the best sources say about a topic. So if there is a lot written in reliable secondary sources about the skeptics, but not much about supporters, guess what, we will have a section about the skeptics and not one about supporters. I haven't looked what the actual available sources for supporters are, but if you have to go to youtube or the Mirror for your research, we have a major problem.

In the supporters section you have missed the plagiarism/copyvio as well as more obvious Synthesis. Could you explain what these are? Also how on God's earth could Padre Pio be a 'supporter' when he died in 1968!! That Crux article is a weak source for all this; it is not a news article, but more like an opinion piece, with lots of I statements included as a clue.

RedRose 13. I presume that you have been engaging in this type of copyright/plagiarism elsewhere on this page and in other pages o this encyclopedia. You can't edit this page at present, but you need to start going through your contributions and remove plagiarism in other articles, either by deleting the info or rewriting it in your own words. --Slp1 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1. In regards to Synth I added it in rather than bringing it down here in the first section. Is it possible to see it in the edits? If not I can bring it down here. (1) The supporters section - there are many supporters mentioned in a number of secondary sources, I hadn't added them yet because I wasn't sure how many is appropriate to put in. In Supporters section what is wrong: these words supported Our Lady of Medjugorje by writing books is not correct and should be "Mariologian René Laurentin, who was a priest and theologian, wrote books about Medjugorje like...(2) in the first paragaph is it wrong to have a reference in the middle of the sentence, is that considered SYNTH - that is all I can see. In regards to Plagiarism “The theology of Medjugorje rings true. I am convinced of its truth. Everything concerning Medjugorje is authentic from a Catholic point of view.” has no attribution. and “the Blessed Virgin Mary will soon be visiting your homeland.” has no attribution. That is all I can see.

I have been working on Zovko's page and noticed that I had rewritten everything except if it was in quotes so I am rewriting some of the quotes and will give attribution. I didn't write everything on that page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Also I wanted you to know that I am gathering all the links you provided and I will continue studying.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about in sentences 2 to 4 above.

(1) Supporters section: If you have secondary sources about notable supporters, why did you not use them? What are these sources? Do you really think that writing a book qualifies somebody as being a supporter?

(2)WP:SYNTH occurs when you put ideas/sentences/phrases together to make new point that is not made in the sources. A reference in the middle of the sentence is a sign that there might be a synth violation, but there are many, many occasions when references in the middle of sentence are not synth. Synth can easily happen with references at the end of sentences too. I will explain the synthesis in this link [6] for you as an example, since you seem to be having trouble. You wrote "It was common knowledge, that the Pope was sympathetic to this Marian site (citation to Gaspari) seeing it as a continuation of Fatima in the battle with communism." (citation to Maunder). Gaspari says "It is, however, common knowledge, that the Pope is sympathetic to the Marian site." Maunder says Hnilica "was said to have the ear of John Paul II, and he reported that the Pope is privately interested in Medjugorje, seeing it as a continuation of Fatima in the battle with communism." Beside the obvious plagiarism, there is a contradiction. Gaspari says that JP's interest was well known. Maunder states that Hnilica "was said to have the ear" and he "reported" that the Pope is privately' interested in Medjugorje. So is JP's supposed interest "common knowledge" or is it something that is only known to certain people? How much attention should Wikipedia pay to hearsay about what JP thought?. That's the first problem WP:UNDUE. The second is that by putting those two bits of sentences together you have made it seem like it was common knowledge that JP supported Medjogorje because of the communism link. In fact, the source clearly says that this part was his private opinion, known only to a few. You have joined two sentences together to say something new (Synth) and which is actually false, based on the sources. Now that I have given you an example from your edits, what is the Synthesis problem here? [7]

In reviewing this paragraph what I see is that the first section is focusing on who Amorth is and the second section, using a primary source, gives quotes directly about his views on OLMedugorje. It is better to just give his name and occupation only- Father Gabriele Amorth, Rome's chief exorcist, says that etc... but using a secondary source. Also, depending on the definition of Supporter, just because he makes a statement re Medjugorje doesn't mean he would be considered a Supporter (SYNTH). SYNTH also comes in when presenting his career as an exorcist and then leaping to his comments about Medjugorje. The second paragraph - The SYNTH occurs when including anything about Pope Benedict even though it was in the reference.

As far as the plagiarism is concerned, I am not just talking about the Zovko page. If you have copied and pasted text into any page in Wikipedia you should start looking for those edits and fix them by attribution in text or rewording --Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I read through this all and will respond as I can. I am also looking through the other pages. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I just finished going through the Zovko page [[8]] - I didn't however make corrections from other editors because I know we are in a learning process.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a request. Will you be able to let me review and correct the pages before you bring this up for me to see (Kriyananda)? Would you rather I just quit Wikipedia? What is it that you want? I have been editing for 10 years and have done my best and am completely open to learning everything I need to. I am truly thankful for you taking the time to guide me here. I am deeply concerned about all the primary, biased sources on the Our Lady of Medjugorje and the other related pages. I have uncovered so much bias because I have looked at most of the references, using google translate when needed. This has taken a great deal of time to bring info from the reference. No one else is stopping it. I have seen reliable references & photographs deleted and many words from a reference with only half the truth. To me when we use a reference we should bring out the whole picture not just a biased view. Also I am unable to edit on Wikipedia full time. So I will need time to clean up and learn. Thanks for listening.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I went through most of the pages I have edited on today. I have three left and hope to do those tomorrow or so.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Kriyananda page and my edits yesterday. I cleaned up other peoples edits in a section along with fixing mine. I have no interest in working on this page except that I corrected my error.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked through the Pavol Hnilica page and was reminded that we, Governor SHeng and myself, had a dispute regarding this page. I am thinking it might be best to clean up and review the quotes after the OLM page is finished. Then it will be clearer about what references can be used on this page. Is that ok?Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Noticed the OLM page is unlocked. Would you like me to clean up my edits on this page? What are your thoughts? Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Worked on the statements we have discussed, on the OLM page. I will continue to clean up any of my errors as I have time.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: Continuing correcting my errors on the OLM page. In the process I noticed that other editors have made similar mistakes, so I am leaving them to be corrected. Also some corrections I am making, I wasn't sure who actually made the edit but decided to correct it anyway for the good of the page. I am almost finished with the OLM page and other pages I have edited on.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This page has living persons on it and so these guidelines come into play here (1) Living Persons WP:LIVE,(2) Verifiability WP:VERIFY, and Reliable sources WP:RELIABLE and [[9]], correct?.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Finishing up rewrites and attribution on this page but I need to point out that I did not correct all of them, when it was clear I had not made the entry. Sometimes I wasn't sure so I corrected it anyway. There are basically two other editors on this page that will need to review quotes that are not given attribution in order to correct their mistakesRed Rose 13 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If I may join, as a party to this discussion. Red Rose keeps adding tons and tons of shady material, construing their own conclusion out of nowhere, like regarding Benedict XVI and Hans Urs von Balthasar... That was just a blatant example of such tendentious editing. We started re-writing this article because they insisted we discuss anything before any major edit (Examle). Two years from now - where are we? They're doing the page on their own, every time they notice I'm away for a month or so. For example, we've been discussing the position of John Paul II section for months (see here), and the section remained status quo. Once they noticed I'm out of the picture, the damned section was entirely rearranged. And if I may just give a notice about another article as an example of tendentious editing - Jozo Zovko. When I created the article [10], it was just about a few important facts, no monkey business, now its an effing fairy tale about Medjugorje. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is best if you don't comment here. I understand your frustration, as you can see, but you aren't exactly guiltless in this debacle. I will be dealing with those issues later.

Red Rose, I strongly, strongly recommend that you do not respond to Governor Sheng Slp1 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussions as of 2/23/22

I have almost completed my corrections on the Our Lady of Medjugorje page and plan to complete it within the next few days.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Working on the John Paul II section and removed some quotes and updated the rest with secondary sources etc... I found a couple of problems that I will leave here for Governor Sheng to see.

This statement is in question because (1) the cardinal is confused if it was about Mirjana or Vicka and because of that it makes no sense to put it in. (2) The quote needs an attribution
Cardinal Dziwisz disputes this. "I can exclude it in the strongest terms. They say that one of the visionaries, though it isn’t clear if it was Mirjana or Vicka, came one day to the general audience and greeted the Pope as he passed. But he said nothing to her. Otherwise he would have remembered. Besides, the Pope had not even realized who it was."

This post is a quote from a blog that is also self-published. Reliable sources do not include blogs or self-published articles. WP:USERGENERATED Wikipedia doesn't allow blogs. So we need to remove it or you can find a reliable secondary source to replace it.

Christian apologist Patrick Madrid characterizes the stories from Medjugorje supporters about how Pope John Paul II favored the authenticity of the apparitions as "apocryphal.”

I am not aware of the Holy Father ever publicly commenting, one way or the other, whether verbally or in writing, on Medjugorje....[T]here are numerous instances of private comments alleged to have been made by JPII about Medjugorje, but none that I am aware of which have been verified with documentation, such as video or audio recordings. Peruse these comments, and you’ll see they are all third-hand.[55]

I am presenting this from a place of peace and respect. Just following guidelines the best I can. Instead of removing them, I am bringing them to you to fix. I will wait two weeks for you to correct these problems before I do anything. Let me know if you need more time.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Today I will be removing the quote from a self-published blog from Patrick Madrid mentioned above. I will also remove the quote from Cardinal Dziwisz who wasn't clear if it was Mirjana or Vicka.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Won't be happening, sorry. Invalid reason. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(1) Then please give a valid reason why you are using a self-published blog on Wikipedia. Here are the guidelines.

Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. [[11]] Here is the personal self-published blog [[12]]

Is this an article about a living person? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Last time I looked there are six living seers as well as other living persons like Zovko for one example.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The point being? This applies only to biographies. This ain't a bio. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought that originally but it applies to wherever living people are. I suggest reading about.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: please learn what a "direct quote" is and what it ain't. "What is a direct quotation? A direct quotation reproduces word-for-word material taken directly from another author's work, or from your own previously published work." [13] --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is true. So when we take words directly from a copyrighted source and use them as written by the author, we have to give attribution.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In response to your comment from your edit. They are all direct quotes. @Slp1: Slp1 I am not sure what to do now. Governor Sheng has reverted my attributions for 4 quotes, I then reverted it back saying we need attributions. He reverted it again. He is fighting with my corrections as per your instruction. I don't understand why he has to fight rather than discuss. I stopped the edit warring but my corrections in this one paragraph have been erased.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You really have no clue what a direct quote is.

The text: "the report was viewed with some reservations by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith led by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller" cannot be found verbatim in the quoted source.

The text: "Müller said in April 2017 regarding Medjugorje..." cannot be found verbatim in the quoted source. Though, Müller's own statement was contributed to him... the obviously. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In this section - Ruini Commission - the international Vatican Commission, 2010–2014 and then go to paragraph that begins...The report was viewed.
(1) The words on the page in quotes - "Ruini report, considered an authoritative contribution to be compared with other opinions and reports."
The words directly from the source - Ruini report, considered an authoritative contribution to be compared with other opinions and reports.
The source is:

(2) The words on the page in quotes - "We have to wait a long time for the authenticity of the apparitions in Medjugorje to be confirmed."
The words from the source - We have to wait a long time for the authenticity of the apparitions in Medjugorje to be confirmed - said Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

(3) Words on the page: "truthfulness of the supposed apparitions of Our Lady in this place, we examine the truthfulness of her message so as to present the results of our work to the Holy Father so that he may decide and declare their truthfulness"
Words from source: "truthfulness of the supposed apparitions of Our Lady in this place, we examine the truthfulness of her message so as to present the results of our work to the Holy Father so that he may decide and declare their truthfulness" - said Cardinal Müller.

(4) The words on the page in quotes - "we cannot separate the pastoral question from the question of the truthfulness of the apparitions."
The words from the source - "we cannot separate the pastoral question from the question of the truthfulness of the apparitions."
The source for quotes 2-4 is:

Yes Muller's words are attributed to him but we have to give attribution to the source as well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right abt the first sentence... The other source is in Polish... how it can be a direct quote then? Also, try reformulating the sentences, rather than adding "according to" every now and then... looks silly. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Just revert your edit and leave it as it is. My source is translated automatically to English. I will take your suggestion into consideration. Before automatically reverting just calm down, don't revert and communicate first.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Slp1 Vetted Reference list - Do not archive

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of The attacks of the Medjugorje “Apparition” against the Diocesan Bishop Pavao Žanic - only - Do not archive

This is a discussion of another one of Bishop Ratko Perić articles regarding Our Lady of Medjugorje.
Using the guidance of Living People on Wikipedia to evaluate:

The Work: The Attacks of the Medjugorje “Apparition” Against the Diocesan Bishop Pavao Žanic [[14]]

• The title of the article itself shows bias
• The Bishop had his distinct Point of View - WP:NPOV WP:NEUTRAL
• Throughout this article the Bishops inserts his interpretation of what is presented.

The Creator: Bishop Ratko Peric

• The bishop over saw the publisher he used.
• Not independent - the bishop oversees Medjugorje
• See the above discussion involving him for the rest of the details [[15]]

The Publisher: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar google translated to Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar

• The Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar was under the guidance of Bishop Peric himself.
• I could not find an ISBN number verifying it was actually published.
• He wrote this article and placed it on the website that he oversaw - the Ordinariate Mostar.

Conclusion (See the discussion here as well [[16]])
This article is a primary source that is one-sided, not neutral and self-published on Peric's ordinariate website

• All of Peric's articles / books about Our Lady of Medjugorje are not neutral and are strongly opinionated.
• All of Peric's articles are primary sources because he was completely involved with the Our Lady of Medjugorje visions in the parish he oversaw.
• There are 6 live visionaries as well as clergy discussed on this page. The Living Person guidelines pertain here. WP:BLPWP:Publicfigure
• Peric self-published it on his own website - Ordinarijat Mostar.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources from PTST -discussion - Do not archive

Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Sources [[17]]
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

• 1. primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
  2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
  3. 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. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
  4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
  6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of History and Presence By Robert Orsi - Do not archive

I am using Wikipedia's guidance about sources for Living People and for Reliable Sources.
The work: History and Presence ISBN 9780674984592 Non fiction - History - scholarly work
The creator: Robert Orsi, Independent from Medjugorje [[18]], Distinguished historian and scholar of religion [[19]]. Professor of Religious Studies, History, and American Studies at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois - Wikipedia [[20]]
The publisher: Reliable - Book published 2016 by The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA established in 1954. Reliable publisher with a long, respected history for editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "HUP(Harvard University Press) owns the Belknap Press imprint, which it inaugurated in May 1954 with the publication of the Harvard Guide to American History.[7] The John Harvard Library book series is published under the Belknap imprint." On Wikipedia [[21]]
Awards:
Honorable Mention, PROSE Award, A Choice Outstanding Academic Title of the Year, A Junto Favorite Book of the Year[[22]]
Reviews:
“This book is classic Orsi: careful, layered, humane, and subtle… If reformed theology has led to the gods’ ostensible absence in modern religion, History and Presence is a sort of counter-reformation literature that revels in the excesses of divine materiality: the contradictions, the redundancies, the scrambling of borders between the sacred and profane, the dead and the living, the past and the present, the original and the imitator… History and Presence is a thought-provoking, expertly arranged tour of precisely those abundant, excessive phenomena which scholars have historically found so difficult to think.”—Sonja Anderson, Reading Religion

“compelling ethnography… Orsi shows that the history of presence includes belief and doubt, anger and awe… Ultimately, this book is meant as a manifesto for historians of religion more broadly… Orsi’s history of a stereotype serves an important purpose, as it rehabilitates the miracle of divine presence in our own histories of religion.”—Madeline McMahon, Marginalia

“Perhaps the heart of [Orsi’s] genius for writing about religion lies in his deft balance of the individual person and the encompassing dynamics of national and international history… Many, I suspect, will applaud Orsi’s effort at pushing back on the epistemological presumptions of modernity, in part at least because doing so opens the way for a fuller recognition of materiality, of the troubling bodies and substances, images, and efficacious things that act on devotees with a force to be reckoned.”—David Morgan, Material Religion

“With reference to Marian apparitions, the cult of the saints, and other divine–human encounters, Orsi constructs a theory of presence for the study of contemporary religion and history. Many interviews with individuals devoted to particular saints and relics are included in this fascinating study of how people process what they believe.”—The Catholic Herald

“Orsi’s evoking of the full reality of the holy in the world is extremely moving, shot through with wonder and horror. Speaking of the sanctuary at Chimayo—which the present reviewer has also visited—Orsi rejects trauma theory. The well of earth is not a ‘metaphor for suffering,’ a ‘hole in the mind’ where suffering spills out; instead, ‘the seeming emptiness is in fact full’; the hole is paradoxical; Christ is present in the dirt… There is much that is specifically Catholic about the horrors and glories that Orsi sets out in such carefully researched detail. His argument in a short epilogue that we should see all religious history through a matrix of presence is, nonetheless, convincing.”—Caroline Walker Bynum, Common Knowledge

“A fiercely inquisitive book on the heart of Roman Catholicism… The bulk of History and Presence concentrates on…the perception phenomenon at the back of worldwide cults of saints’ relics, holy shrines, saints’ cults, apparitions of Mary, and the like. Through very nimble and wide-ranging research, Orsi lays bare the complex intermingling of faith and psychology that has been a key element of Catholicism for five hundred years. One of the persistent strengths of the book is its keen awareness of the day-to-day meaning of its mysteries for the ordinary people involved.”—Steve Donoghue, Open Letters Monthly

“[A] brilliant, theologically sophisticated exploration of the Catholic experience of God’s presence through the material world… On every level—from its sympathetic, honest, and sometimes moving ethnography to its astute analytical observations—this book is a scholarly masterpiece.”—A. W. Klink, Choice

“Orsi recaptures God’s breaking into the world through stories that range from tales of saints, such as Bernadette, to common people who directly experienced divine intervention… The book does an excellent job of explaining both the difficulties and values inherent in recognizing God in the world.”—Publishers Weekly

“This is a meticulously researched, humane, and deeply challenging book. It concerns the people and the groups for whom heaven and earth, life and death are not separated by absolute boundaries. ‘Gods’ (to use Orsi’s term) cross these boundaries. Christ, the Virgin Mary, saints, and the beloved dead remain real presences to many, in a modern world that finds no place for them. The story is set against the background of postwar American Catholicism. It has searing moments of desperate hope and unexpected comfort. It also has moments of sheer horror—as when Orsi explores what sexual harassment by priests means to those who saw in priests human gateways to heaven. The men and women studied in this book do not belong to ‘a world we have lost.’ They belong to a world we have lost sight of.”—Peter Brown, Princeton University

In Conclusion History and Presence is a reliable, independent, secondary source for this page and for all pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje only - Do not archive

Work: Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje - Religious, historical scholarly work
Creator: Sandra L. Zimdars-Swartz, Independent from Medjugorje and a Secondary source - Professor at University of Kansas [[23]] focused in Humanities, Humanities & Western Civilization, and Religious Studies. Fields of Competency: History of Christianity, Religious Experience, Religious Perspectives on Illness, Health and Healing, Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Animals from the Perspective of the Humanities.
Publishers: Reliable - Both have a long, respected history for editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

• Hard cover - Princeton University Press 1991, ISBN 0-691-07371-6
• Paperback - Harper Perennial 1992, ISBN-10:0380718855

Peer Reviews:

• The Journal of Religion, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), p. 639 by Andrew Greeley. "A description and an analysis of alleged apparitions of the Mother of Jesus in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Encountering Mary is a brilliant tour de force."
• Church History, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 531-532. "Regardless of the issue of acceptance or denial, Marian apparitions are a significant phenomenon in recent Catholic history. Unfortunately, the published literature is largely dominated by uncritical studies, but Sandra L. Zimdars-Swartz of the University of Kansas has joined the growing list of scholars who have addressed this phenomenon with caution and respect."
• History and Presence by Robert Orsi, p. 272, "The best general history of modern Marian apparitions is Sandra L. Zimdars-Swartz Encountering Mary : From La Salette to Medjugorje."

In Conclusion: Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje is a reliable, independent, secondary source for this page and for all pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Cardinal Dziwisz comment

Corrected
I spent time this morning researching when this quote was added to Wikipedia. I discovered that Manannan67 posted this on December 9, 2020 see here [[24]]
Here is the direct quote from the source:
Cardinal Dziwisz disputes this. "I can exclude it in the strongest terms. They say that one of the visionaries, though it isn’t clear if it was Mirjana or Vicka, came one day to the general audience and greeted the Pope as he passed. But he said nothing to her. Otherwise he would have remembered. Besides, the Pope had not even realized who it was."
@Manannan67: in your original post, you posted this quote like this leaving out very pertinent words [[25]]:
Cardinal Dziwisz disputes this. "I can exclude it in the strongest terms. They say that one of the visionaries, ...came one day to the general audience and greeted the Pope as he passed. But he said nothing to her. Otherwise he would have remembered. Besides, the Pope had not even realized who it was."
I went to the source and fixed it on Wikipedia by adding in the words you deleted - though it isn’t clear if it was Mirjana or Vicka, This statement is in question because the cardinal is confused if it was about Mirjana or Vicka and it is also WP:SYNTH. I think it should be removed. If you disagree, we can generate a vote from the Wikipedia community.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

How is this a synth? Only one source was used... For syinth, you need to use more then one source, combine them and make up your own conclusion. Nothing of that sort can be found here. Oppose removal. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The two sources are (1) According to Daniel Klimek, Mirjana Dragicevic, one of the seers, attended a general audience at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome in July of 1987 and when John Paul II discovered who she was, he invited her to a private meeting for the following morning at Castel Gandolfo, the pope’s private residence...etc (2) Gian Franco Svidercoschi - Interview with Cardinal Stanislao Dziwisz, personal secretary to JPII "I can exclude it in the strongest terms. They say that one of the visionaries, though it isn’t clear if it was Mirjana or Vicka, came one day to the general audience and greeted the Pope as he passed. But he said nothing to her. Otherwise he would have remembered. Besides, the Pope had not even realized who it was."

With this last statement the editor is trying to imply that the Cardinal was specifically referring to Mirjana. But in reality the cardinal didn't know who it was as he so clearly stated. This would be an improper editorial synthesis WP:SYNTH of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see your concern, but I don't see a synth here. The user simply quoted the source, reliably so, without making any conclusion on his own. I give it a pass. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor, Mannan67 did not simply quote the source, he left out these words which I know you have read and seen above, though it isn’t clear if it was Mirjana or Vicka,. I researched his source and found the full correct quote and inserted it myself. See here [[26]] The editor by leaving out these words was creating a false original research. Also leaving it ambiguous creates a false original research. Thirdly, since this section is exclusively about Mirjana a living person, it needs to be pinpointed in its accuracy. So the LP guidelines enters in here also. This misleading false statement needs to be removed asap.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This is just wrong. You make things up. There's no such this as "false original research", it either is or it isn't. Leaving out words doesn't make it original research. What is the difference in conclusion, with mentioning those two and without mentioning them? This is just plain nonsense. I disagree with removing the edit and the reference. You failed to make your point. That's it for me. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-published blog not acceptable

This post is a quote from a blog that is also self-published. Reliable sources do not include blogs or self-published articles. WP:USERGENERATED Wikipedia doesn't allow blogs. So we need to remove it or you can find a reliable secondary source to replace it. Christian apologist Patrick Madrid characterizes the stories from Medjugorje supporters about how Pope John Paul II favored the authenticity of the apparitions as "apocryphal.” I am not aware of the Holy Father ever publicly commenting, one way or the other, whether verbally or in writing, on Medjugorje....[T]here are numerous instances of private comments alleged to have been made by JPII about Medjugorje, but none that I am aware of which have been verified with documentation, such as video or audio recordings. Peruse these comments, and you’ll see they are all third-hand.[55] This self-published blog needs to be removed. These guidelines all apply. WP:USERGENERATED, WP:BLPSPS & WP:SYNTH From Biographies of living persons "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space. WP:BLPSPS & WP:SYNTH also applies.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

How is this Usergenerated? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Just follow the link above for User Generated. It is explained there.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This self published WP:USERGENERATED, blog WP:BLPSPS implies that the statements following this quote on the OLM page - (particularly the words Peruse these comments, and you’ll see they are all third-hand) - are directly related which they are not.WP:SYNTH Nor are these statements mentioned in his blog.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The blog in question isn't user-generated, nor is this article a bio abt a living person (nota bene - JP II is dead!). What multiple sources were used here, so you concluded it's a synth? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see what you might see as problematic... But Madrid was giving a general statement on these dubious reports... But still... I don't see how is this a synth... No multiple sources were used to produce an own conclusion, nor were different parts of the same source used for the said purpose. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

UserGenerated according to the definition on Wikipedia. "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs.WP:UGC [[27]] It is a self-published blog and here is the guideline heading WP:SPS Governor Sheng, just you saying the blog is not user-generated / self-published is not proof. You will need to read the guidelines or post your own to disprove this. Anybody following the link to his personal website and personal blog will obviously see that it is self-published. Here: [[28]] See his copyright at the bottom of the page Copyright © 2022 Patrick Madrid Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

(1) Please prove that his personal website that has this personal blog on it is not generated (self-published) by himself.
(2) I believe I already gave you the link and quote stating that the LP guidelines applies to all living persons. And Patrick Madrid - in his blog refers to a link while making a point, from his personal blog to a page with Living people on it including Mirjana Soldo, and Fr. Jozo Zovko.[[29]] This link is a part of his blog - private comments alleged to have been made by JPII. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS The blogger has a link to a list of people with comments they allege that JPII made. Easy to see from his blog. [[30]] Both Mirjana and Zovko, who are living, are in this list. Because he gave a link from his blog to this list, it is a part of his blog. I suppose, he chose to link to the list, rather than to write them all out in his blog.

WP:UGC "Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs"

WP:RSSELF"Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

WP:Original "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." The blogger wrote "Peruse these comments, and you’ll see they are all third-hand." He used his blog with no reliable secondary sources to back it up.

Using Common Sense: The bloggers words "Peruse these comments, and you’ll see they are all third-hand." is placed on the page just above the list of comments regarding JPII, implying that all comments and the comments below are third hand accounts only. He is referring to the list he linked to in his blog, that has living persons and not to the list on this page. It is implied by the quote placement. This is synthesis using one source reflecting on many other sources to come up with the bloggers conclusion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, the blog in question isn't user-generated. User-generated sources may include blogs, but not all blogs are user-generated. This is a beginner's logic. A blog is by definition self-published, but Wikipedia allows self-published sources to be used as reliable. Read what user-generated really means. The quote used from his blog discusses a dead person's comment, so by any means we cannot apply WP:BLP here. I think you failed to demonstrate any good reason to remove Madrid from the article. I oppose it. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(1) And yet in his statement he refers to Medjugorje supporters many of whom are alive today - "characterizes the witnessing from Medjugorje supporters about how Pope John Paul II..." Obviously the quote includes living people. (2) You are implying/suggesting by placing this quote here that all the following statements are third party. (3) In reality that is not true. I am placing this here to document the discussion. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues Tags

Two editors placed this list here. This article was started I believe back in around 2008 and has been created by many editors since then. When I came to edit a year or so ago along with others, it was worse than it is now, believe it or not. This multiple issue list should have been put there YEARS ago. In the process of looking at every single reference I discovered many distortions placed on this page including leaving out pertinent words from a quote to make a POV point. Also reliable secondary sources were challenged over and over even though they met the high standards of Wikipedia Guidelines. Also primary sources have been used for contentious claims and are still there, about a living person. I am not going to point out editors because it can easily be seen in the history of both the page and talk page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In regards to adding tags to an article. Editors are asked to explain each tag they have added to an article and exactly what needs to be corrected on the Talk Page. You can read about this on the Responsible Tagging page here [[31]] "If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you." I will give it two weeks for the explanations to be added on this talk page each with their own heading, before I clean up. Governor Sheng, non neutral active editor on this page, added two tags and no explanation and Mananan67 another editor on this page, added tags with no explanation on the talk page. Also I plan on adding the tag for Living Persons and contentious edits using primary sources.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually there is no tag for LP violations. The guideline is to remove it immediately.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Talking to yourself again... --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously not. Just stating facts and that I will be cleaning that section up unless you and @Manannan67: explain each tag on the talk page according to Wiki guidelines mentioned above. You both are also able to make corrections and explain why. Also since you are heavily involved on this page according WIKI guidelines you cannot add tags.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed maintenance templates tags from Governor Sheng because (1) he placed them there even though he is a very active editor of this page and (2) gave no explanation on the talk page nor did he join in this discussion about it. See the guidelines here as mentioned above. [[32]]

Removed maintenance template tags from Manannan67 because he gave no detailed explanation on the talk page as required nor did he join in this discussion about it. See here [33]].Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See the talk page for a more detailed explanation why those tags are there. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

From the responsible tagging guidelines here [[34]] "If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you." And..."the identification and labeling step is often botched, resulting at best in a long delay until the problem is fixed, and at worst in an edit war in which several people revert the tagger, who refuses to explain the reason for the tag." I am removing these tags until there is a a rationale and discussion regarding each issue. Hopefully a collaboration can be established.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Kutleša

Stop removing Kutleša. As you may have noticed - you're the only person here to claim Kutleša is a primary source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Just scroll up to the section Slp1 and her book list - You will notice it is a primary source and can only be used for non controversial posts, just facts. Also you will notice in the book OGLEDALO PRAVDE that Kutlesa is the arranger (editor) (page 3) and Preparation and syllable (page 4) and Peric wrote the Preface (page9) and the Conclusion (page 313). This booklet is a primary source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The preface might be a primary source then. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying but this book is overseen by Bishop Peric who asked his clerk to arrange and edit it. Just go to his wikipedia page here [[35]] Then scroll down to this paragraph. "He attended and passed in the academic year of 1997/98 subjects required for enrollment in a doctorate in canon law. He has mostly worked on his dissertation in Mostar as a clerk at the Episcopal Ordinariate since 1998." Clearly Kutlesa was a clerk at the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar when he edited and arranged the book OGLEDALO PRAVDE for the Bishop. Primary source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Mirjana Soldo section

Doing this here so we won't be edit warring. We are both using primary sources to bring factual information here. Primary sources cannot be used for controversial statements. (1) I added direct quotes from OGLEDALO PRAVDE and when you add a direct quote, you need to do an inline attribution. (2)All of this information in the first paragraph came from OGLEDALO PRAVDE. (3) There was a direct quote in here without an inline attribution, so I added it. (4) the actual words as of 2 August 1987 is written below, Here it is in your version - you wrote "2 August 1987, the apparition would appear every 2nd day of every month." She didn't always appear.

Mirjana Dragičević Soldo was born in 1965, in Sarajevo. She was 15 at the time of the alleged apparitions. She lived in Sarajevo for some time, where she finished her education. She was the second person to see the Gospa. She claims she had regular apparitions between 24 June 1981, and 25 December 1982. She said that she became depressed when the visions stopped and prayed to see the Gospa again. The editor for Bishop Peric, Dražen Kutleša, wrote that she was given all ten secrets, which are intended "for humanity in general, for the world, then for Međugorje, for Yugoslavia, and some other areas and about the sign". Mirjana said that the Gospa left her a gift that she will see the Gospa on her birthday. According to Kutlesa, Soldo said that as of 2 August 1987, "every second day of the month I hear our Lady's voice in me, and sometimes I see her, and with her I pray for the unbelievers". As of 2 January 1997, Soldo knew the exact hour of the apparition (10 to 11 AM). ________________

This all came from OGLEDALO PRAVDE as well:

Soldo said that each if the six seers has a special mission. She was given those who do not know the love of God, Vicka Ivanković and Jakov Čolo for the sick, Ivan Dragičević for the young and the priests, Marija Pavlović for the souls in purgatory, and Ivanka Ivanković for families. _____________________
This came from Connells book, a primary source with factual information, and Raseta news source

Soldo has been married to Marko Soldo, the nephew of the late Franciscan Father Slavko Barbaric, since 1989 and they have two children. They live in Međugorje, where they own a hotel. Soldo wrote her autobiography titled Moje srce će pobijediti (“My Heart will Triumph”) published in 2016.
You have that Soldo wrote a few books but in google only My Heart will Triumph is shown [[36]]
_____________

not sure about these two sources
They also own a mansion at the Croatian island of Hvar in Sućuraj, which they rent for 25,000 Croatian kunas (equivalent to 3,300 Euros or 3,850 United States dollars) a week. One of her daughters, Veronika, studied at the University of Mostar, and is remembered by her colleagues for arriving at classes in a luxury Range Rover.
______________________
From Catholic News Agency
On March 18, 2020 Mirjana Dragićević announced that the Blessed Mother would no longer appear to her at that time, the second of each month.

"Mirjana Dragičević Soldo was born in 1965, in Sarajevo. She was 15 at the time of the alleged apparitions. She lived in Sarajevo for some time, where she finished her education. She was the second person to see the Gospa. She claims she had regular apparitions between 24 June 1981, and 25 December 1982. She said that she became depressed when the visions stopped and prayed to see the Gospa again. The editor for Bishop Peric, Dražen Kutleša, wrote that she was given all ten secrets, which are intended "for humanity in general, for the world, then for Međugorje, for Yugoslavia, and some other areas and about the sign". Mirjana said that the Gospa left her a gift that she will see the Gospa on her birthday.[2] According to Kutlesa, Soldo said that as of 2 August 1987, "every second day of the month I hear our Lady's voice in me, and sometimes I see her, and with her I pray for the unbelievers". As of 2 January 1997, Soldo knew the exact hour of the apparition (10 to 11 AM)."

Kutleša is the editor and authored some of the text (which doesn't include inserts from interviews and so forth). WP states: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". Kutleša was never close to the event (the alleged apparitions) nor was ever directly involved in the matter. He might wrote the book on someone's incentive. This is irrelevant. He as an author is a third party, therefore the source isn't primary. You claim otherwise. We can agree to disagree... But it is what it is. You say one thing, I say another. We don't have a common ground here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is true we don't see this the same. Kutlesa was Bishop Perics clerk, working under him and taking guidance from him. He is even named the Arranger and editor. An editor writes some text but is doing so for his boss, that makes him the editor not the author. The book is a primary source overseen with guidance from the bishop himself. This book cannot be used in controversial issues.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I can see the issue from your POV. from my POV I cannot see anything controversial. But then, please tell me which sentences are controversial? --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Under Further Developments
Controversial posts to start with
(1) In order to create the cathedral parish it was decided to split the parish of SS. Peter and Paul.The Franciscans objected to this as being unfair.
(2) It later became known that Fr. Ivica Vego had impregnated a nun, whom he eventually married and lives with her near Medjugorje.
(3) On 15 January 1982, the bishop invited the alleged seers to his residence to ask them if there were any messages from the Madonna on the issue, and they replied that there were not.[citation needed] However, on 3 April 1982, the seers came to the bishop to tell him that the Madonna scolded them for not telling the truth and that she requested that the two friars remain in Mostar and continue to celebrate mass and hear confessions.[citation needed] The Madonna allegedly told Vicka that Fr. Ivan Prusina and Fr. Ivica Vego "are not guilty of anything" in the matter.[citation needed] Tomislav Vlašić said that he instructed them not to tell the truth because the bishop might dispute the authenticity of the apparitions.[citation needed]
(4) The Archbishop of Split-Makarska Frane Franić, who supported the alleged apparitions from the beginning, tried to persuade Vicka to retract the messages about the two friars, so the authenticity of the apparitions could be defended more easily.[citation needed] However, both Vicka and Ivan continued to claim that the messages regarding the two friars were from the Madonna.[citation needed] The messages included the accusations against Bishop Pavao Žanić and encouragement for the two friars not to leave the parish.[citation needed] It was then when Bishop Pavao took his final negative stance on the alleged apparitions.[citation needed]
(5) On 21 June 1983, one of the seers, Ivan Dragičević, sent a message allegedly from the Madonna to the bishop, in which she requests the bishop's conversion regarding her apparitions, otherwise, he would be "judged by me and my son Jesus.”[citation needed] On 6 February 1985, Ivan Dragičević sent another message from the Madonna, with her stating that if he doesn't believe in her apparitions, at least he shouldn't persecute her priests who believe in her messages and promote them.”[citation needed] Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Slp1 Vetted Reference list - Do not archive

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) 05:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Slp is an editor like any other. Sorry, but you cannot block someone from commenting or even to delete (!) their comments. This isn't like ten commandments or something. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Needs an Independent Opinion whether Ogledalo pravde is a primary source or not

My intention is to bring this page up to impeccable standards of Wikipedia. Governor Sheng and I have struggled with this reference for quite awhile now. I present my extensive research on this subject below.
Disputed reference Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian) published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated as Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar.
This source is not a reliable source and is a POV primary source on a controversial page and is self-published. Using this as one of the guidelines WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

(1) Not Independent from the subject - Dražen Kutleša is the editor who prepared the book for Bishop Peric who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions. Here is the pdf [[37]]
Google translated from title page: MIRROR JUSTICE, Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar, about alleged apparitions and messages, in Medjugorje, Prepared by Don Drazen, Mostar, 2001. And on On page 4 it translates as: BISHOP'S ORDINARY MOSTAR, THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE, Preparation and syllable: Don Drazen Kutlesa

(2) Not the author but the editorDrazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 and the beginning paragraph google translated: "By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."[[38]]

(3) Drazen Kutlesa at the time he organized Ogledalo Pravde for Bishop Peric, he was working as a clerk at the The Bishop's Episcopal Ordinariate located in Mostar [[39]] which means he was working for and under the instruction of Bishop Ratko Peric. From Kutlesa's wikipedia page - "He has mostly worked on his dissertation in Mostar as a clerk at the Episcopal Ordinariate since 1998. and in 2003 he is still in Mostar where "he published in Mostar a part of his thesis in Italian".

(4) Bishop Peric was a prelate of the Catholic Church who served as the bishop of Mostar-Duvno and apostolic administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. [[40]] First Bishop Zanic and then Bishop Peric both oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions see link [[41]] Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric were not independent but were directly involved in the controversy of Medjugorje and had negative WP:POV's about the subject.

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

(6) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314) to this pdf.[[42]]

(7) Self published - the publishing was directly under Bishop Peric's direction. It was published by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar directly under Bishop Peric. "The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno is the head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, who is responsible for looking after its spiritual and administrative needs". List_of_Roman_Catholic_bishops_of_Mostar-Duvno "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." [[43]]

(8) There is no ISBN Number to prove it was officially published To be a reliable source it has to be independently published by a respected publisher.

(9) Collection of primary sources WP:PSTS It is a compilation of interviews and statements including from the previous Bishop Zanic. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.See in the pdf on page 3 the list of names [[44]]

(10) There are many living persons within the Our Lady of Medjugorje articles: The visionaries: Ivan Dragićević, Ivanka Ivanković, Jakov Čolo, Marija Pavlović, Mirjana Dragićević, Vicka Ivanković and Jelena Vasilj. The clergy: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbaric, Tomislav Vlasic, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivica Vego. And etc...

(11) It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje which is a controversial subject.[[45]]

(12) Governor Sheng has already placed Ogledalo pravde on RSN with no response [[46]]

(13) Governor Sheng also placed the reference for this article on the RSN. "An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used. [[47]] Our mentor editor Slp1 that was working with us on the Our Lady Of Medjugorje page answered the request and here it is: "As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life." Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings [[48]]:
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." [[49]]

In conclusion: Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) is a primary source, self published and written in a non neutral point of view "Point of View"
1) The work - Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) - a primary source
2) The creator of the work - Bishop Peric - not independent and his Clerk Kutlesa - not independent
3) The publisher - Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar which the Bishop Peric oversaw - self-published
Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:, how abt u sign yourself? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oooops sorry, just signed :)Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Marija Pavlovic Lunetti section

This is what I wrote that you reverted. I added to it and took out excess, making it more encyclopedic. Are there any objections?
Marija Pavlović Lunetti was born on April 1, 1965, in Bijakovići near Međugorje. She finished secondary school in Mostar. She was 16 at the time of the alleged apparitions of Our Lady, whom she first saw on June 25, 1981. She says she receives daily apparitions, was given nine secrets from the Gospa and receives a message on the 25th of each month for the entire world. These messages were first made public by the Franciscans overseeing the visionaries, Tomislav Vlašić, then after him Slavko Barbarić. She was given the special mission to pray for the souls in purgatory.
She is married to Italian Paolo Lunetti with whom she has four children. Even though she lives most of the year in Milan, Italy, she visits Medjugorje often. She was asked by an Italian journalist, why she didn't become a nun, to which she replied that even though she felt drawn to the monastery, she realized that her vocation is about witnessing what she saw and felt. She said that she will be able to seek the way of holiness outside the monastery. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC) The controversial section regarding Tomislav Vlašić and his community needs to be referred to but not using the primary source OGLEDALO PRAVDE. Perhaps we can find a secondary source. I will research for it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I found a secondary source to add to this section regarding Vlašić and updated the section. I then added the above paragraphs and that paragraph. Let me know what you think. I trimmed excessive wording and got right to the point.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Let us not make a mess... We can discuss issues one by one. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I translated the whole section about lunetti in Ogledalo pravde and slightly restructured the section by adding a little more from this booklet. Also the added secondary source helps. I think you will be happy.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Ivan Dragičević Section

Governor Sheng, this is what I wrote that you reverted. I had streamlined it using the primary source, Ogledalo Pravde, because we can use primary sources for facts and noncontroversial information only. I also removed POV conclusions and added an attribution for a quote. Your thoughts. Ivan Dragičević was born in Mostar on May 25, 1965. He was 15 at the time of the alleged apparitions. After graduating from elementary school, he enrolled in a number of schools including a seminary, while at the same time having almost daily apparitions, and in the end was not sufficiently interested in school and returned home in January 1983. He said, like Vicka Dragičević, that the Gospa dictated her autobiography to him from December 1982 to May 1983.

Dragičević married Laureen Murphy, a former Miss Massachusetts, in 1994. They have four children and live in Boston for six months and then reside the other half the year in the parish of Medjugorje.

In October 2013, Archbishop Gerhard Müller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wanted the U.S. bishops to be aware that Dragicevic was scheduled to give presentations at parishes across the country and was anticipated to have more apparitions during these talks. According to the Catholic Stand, the Apostolic Nunciature to the United States advised the bishops that the 1991 Zadar declaration that Catholics, whether clergy or laypeople, "are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such apparitions would be taken for granted". The letter was sent to every diocese in the U.S. as the CDF determined that the judgment of the Yugoslavian bishops which precluded such gatherings remained in force. - sign on May 10 Cathyrose

Updated the section. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Let us not make a mess... We can discuss issues one by one. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop reverting first and discussing later. I waited for weeks for a response from you and I don't think we are required to wait but a week before moving forward. The answer to my edits is I also used the same source but removed the controversial statements related to it. Kutlesa is a primary and is the only source used in his section. We cannot use primary sources for controversial statements but only secondary reliable sources.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section and brought the actual words from the primary source. Go through all the edits and read my comments before reverting.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

References

OGLEDALO PRAVDE

I will repeat:

• Just scroll up to the section Slp1 and her book list - You will notice it is a primary source and can only be used for non controversial posts, just facts.
• Also you will notice in the book OGLEDALO PRAVDE that Kutlesa is the arranger (editor) (page 3) and Preparation and syllable (page 4) and Peric wrote the Preface (page9) and the Conclusion (page 313). This booklet is a primary source.
• the book is overseen by Bishop Peric who asked his clerk to arrange and edit it. Just go to his wikipedia page here Dražen Kutleša. Then scroll down to this paragraph. "He attended and passed in the academic year of 1997/98 subjects required for enrollment in a doctorate in canon law. He has mostly worked on his dissertation in Mostar as a clerk at the Episcopal Ordinariate since 1998." Clearly Kutlesa was a clerk at the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar when he edited and arranged the book OGLEDALO PRAVDE for Bishop Peric. This is a primary source and cannot be used for controversial posts. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sigh... I really don't care about Slp1's book list as if it were ten commandments. I told you so, and I disagree with her judgment on it. Deal with it. Second, Perić being an auhor of the preface and the conclusion doesn't make Kutleša an author of a primary source. Kutleša was never directly involved in the event. We're discussing Kutleša here, not Perić. But then again, even if it is a primary source, Kutleša is a university professor, an expert, and thus reliable. Third... This is just a bunch of your own original research, conclusions, and whatnot. Something Wikipedia discourages. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Well it seems we need a third party opinion. It is obvious to me that Ogledalo Pravde is a primary source and cannot be used for controversial statements.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We do need opinion of other users on this. However, we failed multiple times. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Dražen Kutleša editor

To avoid edit warring I brought the discussion here. Governor Sheng I notice that you claim that Kutlesa is the author of Ogledalo Pravde. I have already presented from the source that this is not true.[[50]] He is the arranger and editor but not the author. In order for you to keep his name there, you will need to prove that he is the author and that he wrote that sentence. The only other option is to refer to the "book" which is a primary source. Also we need the ISBN number of when it was published.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it is written that he did priprema and slog. Since your Croatian is so good, you know what slog means. If not, do ask. Also, read his foreword. He's the author of the content. You don't need an ISBN number. Don't make up the rules. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Priredio (Arranged by) Kutlesa on page 3
(2) Priprema i slog (Preparation and syllabus) Kutlesa on page 4
(3) RIJEČ PRIREĐIVAČA (Organizers words) Kutlesa on page 9 - First words of the first sentence - "At the behest of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić..."
(4) The foreword (PREDGOVOR)which begins on page 11 and ends on page 15 is signed by Ratko Perić, biskup(the author)
(5) The ISBN number is optional. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) More correct translation would be - edited by, but yeah, that's it. (2) priprema is somewhat correctly translated, however, slog stands for "text, manually written or typewritten, ready for publication", that's the definition given by Hrvatski jezični portal. Also, "preparation and syllabus makes no sense whatsoever, as you might have assumed already. (3) Correct. And in that chapter, he writes what he has done - "Po nalogu mjesnoga biskupa msgr. Ratka Perića nastojao sam skupiti i kompjutorski prirediti razne izjave, priopćenja, komentare i studije u vezi s međugorskim pojavama... [...] Nakon prezentacije šestero "vidjelaca" predstavljeni su biskup Pavao Žanić, s jedne strane, kao odgovorni u prosuđivanju takvih zbivanja..." (4) Correct, but also irrelevant. (5) Correct. Optional. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Yes he is the editor
(2) Primprema (preparation) i (and) slog (print text manually or typewritten) So Kutlesa prepared and printed the materials like the clerk.
(3) yes Kutlesa was asked by Peric to compile all the information - "Po nalogu mjesnoga biskupa msgr. Ratka Perića nastojao sam skupiti i kompjutorski prirediti razne izjave, priopćenja, komentare i studije u vezi s međugorskim pojavama... [...] translated to At the behest of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I tried to collect and computerize various statements, announcements, comments and studies regarding the medjugorje phenomena.
(4) The Foreword was written by Bishop Peric as well as the conclusion and is completely relevant.

(2) No, he wrote a part of the text for publishing. He did the slog i.e. he did the "text, manually written or typewritten, ready for publication". This is where Google Translator betrays you. (3) The point was for you to read the second sentence of the quote. (4) Irrelevant for the discussion, yes. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(2) I used your translator link and the first word said was print and then "text, manually written or typewritten." Apparently he typed up the collected statements into an organized document that he printed out. (3) The second sentence you are referring to: Nakon prezentacije šestero "vidjelaca" predstavljeni su biskup Pavao Žanić, s jedne strane, kao odgovorni u prosuđivanju takvih zbivanja. is translated as "after the presentation of the six "visionaries", Bishop Pavao Zanic was presented, on the one hand, as responsible in judging such events..." The added comments and opinions in the booklet are not Kutlesa's, they are Zanics. Peric just asked him to organize it all. (4) The fact that Peric wrote the forward and the conclusion says volumes. Kutlesa was asked to perform this organizational task by his superior, Bishop Peric. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(2) Lol, it doesn't say print. As you can see it's in cursive and it is an abbreviation of tiskarski, ie., the jargon used by the employees in the publication. For example, in the word advokat, you'll notice the first word is pravn., an abbreviation for pravnički, or legal jargon. Tisk doesn't mean anything in Croatian. Tisak means printing, yes, but that's something else. Here we have an abbreviated adjective. So no. Google didn't help you there, sorry, you're still wrong. (3) Whatever, the point was, in his foreword, Kutleša presented what he has done in the book. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion as of 5-26-22

• In regards to the edit on the Mirjana page - it is apparent that you placed the word luxury in regards to her car but when you go to paragraph 6 in reference, you will see the word is beautiful not luxury. Then after I changed the word to beautiful, I realized that the word beautiful is subjective and it seemed non neutral so I removed it. If you took the time to read my comments on my edits, you would have seen that. I am taking out the word Luxury which you falsely place there. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Please read the details before coming to a conclusion. It was not Lunettis book I was quoting but Randall Sullivan. Lunetti was the reference name I gave it. I am going to place it all back.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• The citation Kulesa was removed on Vicka page because it is a primary source and they cannot be used for a controversial post. I reverted itRed Rose 13 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, but do not deleted sentences or parts of a sentence you apparently disagree with. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually I edit directly from sources and bring the whole truth. I do notice that both you and Mannanan have done that however, and I have corrected many of them already.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, I just noticed in your new addition that you 'forgot' to give attribution to quoted words which is a violation of the copyright guidelines for Wikipedia. Slp1 addressed that thoroughly in our discussion. Please correct it or it will need to be deleted.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Where? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Link to your error [[51]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no error there. P.S. The quote was attributed to the President. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we need to add the attribution to the source that provides the quoted material. According to.... etc. I think you are familiar with that Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that's just your imagination. Plus, the attribution is given, I quoted the president and attributed the quoted part to him. Don't worry abt that. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Slp1 wrote: "You must rewrite text in your own words. If you do not rewrite it, you must put it in quotes and give attribution... You do not need to attribute every sentence. Only ones where you have directly quoted text, or where somebody is giving their opinion." The attributions are always the source of the quote not the author of the quote. So in this case: According to the online magazine, Vijesti, Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And whose words did I use? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Finished discussing, I added the attribution as required by Wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Whose words did I use? --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. Here is the in text citation guidelines [[52]] I was giving it a double attribution which is not necessary.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)