Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 2

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article is little more than a cited stub. The other article is a mess, but much of it is cited. It should be merged here and cleaned up. -- Secisek (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This article used to have a lot more (see the edit history), but so much of it was direct quotation that it amounted to a copyvio and was removed. Even the stuff that wasn't a copyvio was not terribly neutral, for example by reporting the statements of the "seers" as fact. —Angr 11:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the writer of the Status of Medjugorje article. (I am a journalist and writer of more than 250 published articles on a variety of subjects.) I don't mind merging the article Status of Medjugorje into Our Lady of Medjugorje. The article took me a period of two years of research and writing to complete, so it is very thorough and a great deal of work went into it. I have spoken with numerous contacts, including the author of Time Magazine's Best Religion Book of the Year award and spokesmen at the Vatican to verify information contained in the article. The one thing I don't want to happen is for someone to come in and hack the article into pieces because of nit-picky problems they have with it. It has already been edited by a professional editor and is a great introduction to the topic for those who don't know the issue. I would rather leave it as is under the title Status of Medjugorje than have it hacked up by hack writers. Nevertheless, I will move the article over and make some changes to reflect the new title if people would prefer that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfranciw (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that at the bottom of every edit page at Wikipedia there's a notice saying, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You can't contribute to Wikipedia and expect your writing to be left alone. —Angr 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand those guidelines. I am trying to avoid editing by people who do not understand the subject or who have bad writing skills. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfranciw (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I will move the article over during the next week or so, definitely by the end of January. If anyone objects, please make a note of it here. Peterfranciw (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So long as we complete the copyright verification procedure first, I have no issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl: What do I need to do in order to complete the copyright verification procedures? Peterfranciw (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This information was already posted at the other talk page, but since that article may be deleted if verification is not forthcoming, I'm going to restate it here for future use. Basically, the article in question was previously published under the name and copyright of "Craig Turner." Copyright infringement does not hinge on present publication elsewhere, but on prior publication. In order for Wikipedia to print that text, we need external verification that you are Craig Turner and understand the terms or license or that Craig Turner is willing to release this material under a licence compatible with GFDL. The prior publication specifically forbid commercial reproduction; Wikipedia requires that material be free for commercial reproduction and modification. (See GFDL.) If you are the author, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to verify. If you are not, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. This situation is a little more complicated in that the original point of publication is no longer live, but the copyright protection on the material remains in full force. If you still own the domain, an e-mail associated with it, including the archived link, would suffice. If not, other steps may be required to verify your identity and the terms of release. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• What exactly is the merge proposal? See Help:Merging for formatting a merge proposal. I oppose a merge pending, explanation of it.
• What exactly is the material which is considered to be a copyright violation? See Wikipedia:Copyright problems for formatting a description of a copyright problem. patsw (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was a year ago. I think it's all been solved now. +Angr 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

New Article

This entirely orphaned article Status of Međugorje has recently been created, as far as I can see only two editors have worked on it. I was going to put a link in the Međugorje article and in this, but I wasn't sure how well-researched it was. Hence, I'm drawing the attention of better-informed editors to it here to see what you think. ANB (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm always suspicious when a new editor creates a 26 KB article in just one edit. I'd Google search some key phrases and see if it's a copyvio. If not, it should be edited down a bit and merged into this article. At least it cites its sources. +Angr 08:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Description of "Gospa" in text doesn't match image in article because . . .

In the photo of the statue, the "Gospa" is wearing a pink dress with a pastel blue outer robe and her veil is white with a gold border. She has brown hair and brown eyebrows. In the text, the "visionaries" describe her as having black hair and black eyebrows and wearing a bluish-gray dress (with no mention of an outer robe) and a pure white veil on her head. Can anyone explain these apparent discrepancies? Kenatipo ^speak! 21:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the creator of the statue did not feel a need to conform perfectly to the visionaries' descriptions. I think the visionaries have given varying descriptions based on different appearances. The statue is of Our Lady of Međugorje. Cresix (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see Our Lady changing her clothes at Medjugorje, but I can't see her changing the color of her hair and eyebrows. Kenatipo ^speak! 23:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you need to take that up with the creator of the statue, not the visionaries, or Our Lady, or the editors of this article. Our Lady has been represented in many different ways through the centuries, most likely none of which actually bears any resemblance to the actual mother of Jesus. Cresix (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Our readers shouldn't have to read the description in the text, look at the picture, scratch their heads and say "WTF?!?!". Kenatipo ^speak! 02:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So far, you're the only one complaining. I doubt very seriously that 99.9% of our readers nitpick such details as much as you have. There is no requirement that the image matches the details of the visionaries. Wikipedia is limited in the images it can use. If you can find a free image of Gospa that matches the visionaries' descriptions perfectly, by all means please place it in the article. But for now, the one in the article is likely the best one we can get. Cresix (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know why there are two versions of the Gospa statue? Kenatipo ^speak! 02:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There are more than two version of Gospa in art work. They're different because artists and sculptors sometimes do things differently from each other. Cresix (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone besides Cresix know why there are two versions of the Gospa statue? The "description" section of our article seems to indicate that all the visionaries saw the same "Gospa". Kenatipo ^speak! 02:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The visionaries didn't create the statue. Cresix (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See section below entitled: . . . the picture is really Our Lady of Tihaljina Kenatipo ^speak! 20:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Youtube video of Benedict XVI

I don't believe a video made by apparition supporters is a reliable source for the actions of Benedict XVI. In fact, there are 2 statues on the table, and he's blessing the Madonna and Child, not the Gospa. The still photo in the video crops out the statue he was really blessing. You can tell by the way his body is pointed, toward the right side of the table. The video is dishonest, and it is not a Reliable Source for the official actions of the pope anyway. The entire sentence about blessing the statue needs to come out of the article. Kenatipo ^speak! 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's think about this. If the video had been made by CNN, would it have changed the actions of Benedict XVI? Or maybe you're accusing the makers of the video of some extremely high tech magic that made it look like something that it wasn't, or of hiring a Benedict look-alike to pull off such a scam. And wow, you're quite an expert in body language and mind-reading to figure out that Benedict directed the entirety of his blessing to no more than a couple of degrees of his body orientation. Not even a miniscule amount of that blessing spilled over to the other statue. Cresix (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a homemade Youtube video a reliable source for the official actions of the pope? I don't think so. Why is the still photo cropped to not show the other statue? I don't believe Benedict XVI would knowingly bless anything related to an unapproved apparition. Kenatipo ^speak! 01:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

An even bigger wow! Is Benedict now consulting with you about what he blesses? I think Benedict's blessing hit a few molecules of the Gospa statue. But I'm just a mortal, so I'm not 100% sure. "Unapproved apparition": nice spin. "Unapproved" doesn't mean it has been condemned as heresy. It simply means the Church has not taken an official position. The Church does not have an official position on a number of apparitions, but it rarely discourages the faithful from having their private beliefs. The last time I checked the canons, Benedict can bless anything he wants to bless. He's not forbidden to bless a statue of an apparition that has not had the official Vatican stamp of approval. Blessing a statue of Our Lady is not equivalent to an official approval of the Međugorje phenomena. Cresix (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about B16 blessing the statue is in the article section entitled "Official position of the Holy See". Kenatipo ^speak! 02:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So? The article doesn't state that the Church has officially approved it. In fact, the section makes it very clear that the Church has not officially approved it. Cresix (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the video: there's nothing high tech about stopping the video when it's about to show something you don't want people to see, putting a still photo in instead, and cropping the right side of the photo so it doesn't show the other statue on the table that B16 was more likely blessing. Kenatipo ^speak! 02:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made your case sufficiently for this vast conspiracy theory that has been thrust into the article by the makers of the video. Let's move on. There are more important things to do here. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion. Cresix (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

One person with an agenda editing a video is not a vast conspiracy. Why is the right side of the table cropped from the still photo of Benedict making the blessing? Answer: because it shows the statue he was really blessing -- a Madonna with the Baby Jesus on her left arm. Benedict XVI could say the Easter Vigil jumping up and down on a pogo stick if he wanted to -- but he wouldn't. Nor would he knowingly bless anything to do with an unapproved apparition, especially one as controversial as Medjugorje. "Unapproved apparition" isn't spin; it's an accurate description; and, it's the standard term used by the Legion of Mary, for example, in describing events like Medjugorje. (The LOM wisely has nothing to do with unapproved apparitions and actively discourages its members from apparition-chasing). Back to the still photo: the Gospa is facing us, the viewer. If B16 were blessing the Gospa statue his back would be to us. He is at right angles to the Gospa statue, blessing something on the right side of the table, conveniently cropped out of the photo. The YouTube video is at best misleading. I also notice at the beginning of it they don't even call her Our Lady of Medjugorje but Mary Queen of Peace. For wikipurposes, this event needs to be reported on by the Vatican or a reliable newspaper to meet wikirequirements. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "unapproved apparition" is definitely a spin in the context that you present it. Belief that the Veil of Veronica bears an image of Christ's face has never been officially "approved", but that belief is not discouraged and certainly not condemned or decried as false. Unapproved apparitions could easily be described as apparitions for which the Church has not taken an official position but has not criticized as heresy or false. Do you dispute that? If so, let's see your evidence. "Approved apparition" carries a lot of weight, and rightly so. "Unapproved appartion" carries no weight, good or bad.

You're exercising your mindreading skills again (unfortunately not very well). You have no idea why an image was cropped. Without any evidence for your claim that "it shows the statue he was really blessing", that claim makes no more sense than "He was blessing all the statues" or "This is a vast conspiracy to misrepresent what B16 was blessing". You have a right to your opinion about the video and the photographs, but let's not pretend that it's more than an opinion. Cresix (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

However, it seems a reasonable opinion to me; per the RSN discussion youtube videos are not typically reliable sources because of the possibillity of manipulation and misrepresentation, which I agree is a considerable possibility here; it is also a primary source. In sum, an inappropriate source, most especially for information about a living person, as Pope Benedict is. Other concerns include WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Please find some independent secondary sources that mention this blessing. Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the reliable sourcing issue. I do have a problem with the false innuendo that "unapproved apparition" suggests something that is frowned upon by the Church. That is simply not true. And I have a problem with the speculation about what B16 was or was not blessing, as if anyone can read his mind. Those are not "reasonable opinions". Cresix (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If Pope Benedict had blessed a Gospa statue in St Peter's Square, it would have been big news, like when JPII blessed the Koran (or whatever he did to it). There would have been considerable discussion afterwards and we would have no trouble finding an RS. Kenatipo ^speak! 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again with your unfounded assumptions. Believe it or not, not everything that the Pope blesses is "big news". I have a rosary blessed by JP2, but there hasn't been a single news report about it despite the fact that he did it quite publicly. You're no better at seeing into the future than you are at mind reading. Cresix (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, please stop your personal remarks, and remember to comment on content not the contributor. As it happens, Kenatipo makes an important point. The reason why the blessing of your rosary would not be a suitable addition to JP2's article- not that you suggested it, I understand- is that no reliable secondary source has mentioned it. Ditto the blessing of the statue. Unless it is considered "news" by others (as measured by it being noted in secondary sources) it has no place in this encyclopedia. --Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My remarks were not personal. They were directed at the erroneous thinking that an editor here can assume he knows what the Pope thinks or what his intentions are. If I made a comment on a talk page that the Pope likes to think about nursery rhymes, I would expect someone to challenge my inadequacy in making such a statement. A personal comment would be my telling an editor that he is stupid for making a certain comment, which I have not done. And you missed my point about the blessings, Slp1. I didn't claim that either blessing is notable. I said that that fact that a particular blessing by B16, out of thousands that he makes every year, is not necessarily going to get a lot of press, as Kenatipo suggests. Cresix (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't see the problem with your comments and tone, then I don't know how to help you, except perhaps to note that it shows just the sort of attitude that Wikimedia is trying to discourage as impacting on the health of Wikipedia. And once again, I think Kenatipo's point is more than valid. This is a situation where, unlike your rosary, reliable sources would be expected to corroborate the story. --Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, I'll just say, if I inadvertently made a personal comment, I apologize. That having been said, I continue to say that Kenatipo made several completely unfounded comments above about what B16 was thinking or what his intentions were in his actions (and that has nothing to do with the reliability of a source; as I said, I don't have a problem with that issue). And that's his right to speculate in words here, but let's not pretend it's more than mere speculation. And I also think you have no basis for suggesting that any particular blessing delivered by the Pope will get any press coverage. That also is speculation. Again, my apologies where I might have not selected my words carefully, and thanks for yours and Kenatipo's comments here. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your points are fine, Cresix, and you've just shown that it is possible to express them calmly and without knocking others. Congratulations. Your apologies show real class, and I congratulate on that even more!! Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

. . . the picture is really Our Lady of Tihaljina

As it turns out, the image in the article is "Our Lady of Tihaljina",[1] not the Gospa of Medjugorje. Tihaljina is 27km northwest of Medjugorje. The Lady of Tihaljina is actually Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (1830) with the twelve stars on the reverse of the medal added to her halo. This explains (to me at least) why the "visionaries" description of the apparition does not match the image in our article. Kenatipo ^speak! 20:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

YouTube video at WP:RSN

I just put the question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if anyone would like to opine there. Kenatipo ^speak! 17:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reported Messages and Visions

The section under this heading does not included reported messages and visions.

It would seem appropriate to mention representative examples of daily messages, the Ten Secrets, and such. --cregil (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an intriguing suggestion, Giles. Which of the 40,000 messages would you consider representative? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You know... I just changed my mind. I no longer wish to help. Nice attitude, good luck with that.--cregil (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Before you go, could you at least choose a number between 1 and 40,000? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Giles is disgusted. Here's the message I left on his talk page: Giles, I wasn't trying to drive you away by my flippancy. I think your idea has merit. I know nothing about the messages. My suggestion would be for you to choose a short one and add it to the article. (Of course it has to be referenced). I wouldn't delete it; I'm an inclusionist. But, I also can't predict if there would be a consensus to keep your addition of a message or two. Cheers. --Kenatipo speak! 01:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What amazes me the most is the examples of the "ten secrets". Aren't they supposed to be secret by definition? --Lebob (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lebob, I'm the wrong one to ask; I'm in the wikipedia category Medjugorje deniers. IIRC, the ten secrets are being revealed gradually. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I will reveal the 10th secret to you, though: Our Lady of Medjugorje says it was all a HOAX! LOL! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Related move discussion

Note a related (and relisted) move discussion at Talk:Međugorje In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Now closed. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Red Rose 13's misue of sources

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

Case 1 - Sister Emmanuel Maillard's book.

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

Example - [2]

Comparison - [3]

The internet:

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

Red Rose:

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

In this case, Red Rose cites page 71 (out of blue), and references the same page where they mention that Bishop Hnilica quoted Pope John Paul II. [4].

***Here you are accusing me again. Assume good faith - Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. WP:GF You see I did not get this information from the internet. I have the book in my hands. Page 71 is the actual page in the book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And the quote about Hnlica? Also p. 71? Why not provide a full quote as I asked you? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you actually asking me to type up the whole page and place it here? Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm asking you to write a few sentences. A paragraph. That notwithstanding, You assumed bad faith against me, so I translated, not a paragraph, but several pages. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Remember it was another editor who asked you to do the translation not me. Stop accusing people! Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Case 2 - Slawomir Oder's book

Example - [5]

Comparison - [6]

The Internet:

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

Red Rose:

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

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

Yes I found the error and corrected the page numbers to bring clarification. Thanks for pointing out my error. Again are you actually asking me to type up pages from this book? I have never heard of such a thing. By the way thanks for new quotes and a new online reference!Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Also because of the difficulties on this page, I bought this book too.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, be aware, those links are unreliable as sources. :) You can read them all you like. It was my pleasure. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely to see if they are reliable yet but I will.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Case 3 - Inside the Vatican

Example - [7]

Comparison - [8]

The Internet:

In line with Roman Catholic tradition, Pope John Paul II considers the Medjugorje phenomenon an issue for the local hierarchy. It is, however, common knowledge, that the Pope is sympathetic to the Marian site. In a meeting with Bishop Paul Hnilica, the Pope reportedly said: "If I were not the Pope, I would probably have visited Medjugorje by now." During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: "All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?" This article was taken from the November 1996 issue of "Inside the Vatican." Subscriptions: Inside the Vatican, Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, 3050 Gap Knob Road, New Hope, KY 40052, 1-800-789-9494, Fax: 502-325-3091.

Red Rose:

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

Once again, I'm asking you to provide me full quotes with correct pages, for all of the 3 cases I mentioned. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please change the title of your little presentation to show good faith. Right now it is accusatory saying that I misused the references when in fact I did not.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC) To the reader be sure to read this whole thing and notice GSheng didn't realize I actually have two of the books he is referring to. Not sure why he keeps accusing me of wrong doing. I did make a mistake on the page numbers which I quickly corrected.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

By puting your comment first, this becomes your presentation. Stop vandalising my effing little presentation! :) Now, give me the quotes, I beg you. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor Governor Sheng sabatoging & holding the page hostage

Governor Sheng, We clearly need to bring these issues to the talk page. Deleting and adding is very disruptive to the page. You are holding the page hostage by using your beliefs. If on this talk page we are unable to agree then we need to ask for help. Do not delete my edits until we can settle the issue.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course, we should discuss things first. Remember when you deleted my edits without any prior explanation on the talk page? Remember when you requested that we discuss everything before we insert my edits from my sandbox to the article? Then you started a rampage, editing daily, adding new sections, modifying the article - all of that without prior discussion? Hypocrisy at its best! But of course, I agree, we should discuss the issues. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

you were off wikipedia for a good number of days. Most of what I did was structure the page and added information that explains about what has and is happening. Readers expect to come to a page and learn about the subject.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't. I'm editing on a daily basis. If I'm gone, it's 24 hrs at most. Remember your comments on me asking you to explain your vacancy for over a few months? "We have other things to do". Stop being hypcritical. Alright? --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I remember you saying that and do you remember my response? You said you were not ready and I was waiting for you to respond.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

When we use a direct quote from someone, we are not allowed to change the wording. You did this here for the 2006 quote. [9] I went to your link, read it all and found the ACTUAL quote and corrected your mistake.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What quote? --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This one [10] 2006. Yesterday I also looked back in the history and found where you changed it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Like to the Pope John Paul II, many statements affirmative towards Medjugorje were ascribed to Pope Benedict XVI while he was still a cardinal, which he dismissed as "mere fabrications"? That one? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The only place Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) was mentioned in her book was about Cardinal Ratziner was when he removed Zanic from Medjugorje after he turned in a negative report. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I gave you the link twice already. So here are the actual words from the quote - "We at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have always wondered how credible apparitions can be for one believer every day and for so many years."

And this is how you changed it [11] - We at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith always asked ourselves how can any believer accept as authentic apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?". Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Emmanuel Maillard

A simple search on Google Scholar doesn't give any hints about her, nor her book. Her books aren't used by any scientific paper as a reference. [12]

Emmanuel Maillard is highly unreliable as an author. She listed several quotes attributed to Pope John Paul II as well as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger refuted her claims as "frei erdunden" (or mere fabrications).

Not only that, but the book Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs) is quoting - Medjugorje gli anni ‘90 (original edition in Italian) was sold with tissues so the readers may wipe away tears (!). What serious literature is being sold with tissues so the readers may wipe their tears?

The author is some sort of a charismatic. She heads the organisation called Children of Medjugorje dedicated to delivering "five simple messages from Our Lady in Medjugorje" (fasting, praying and so forth). Thus, she can be considered biased on the subject. (At least according to her web-site - https://sremmanuel.org/about-us/].

This book nor author cannot be considered reliable. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If exist some problems with RS there is a WP:RSN where the quality of the source can be determined. I don't follow this topic so I'm not very helpful in this case. Mikola22 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Mikola22 for your source. Very useful. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking through her website I notice a number of things [13]:

• She started Children of Medjugorje, Inc. in France in 1990 with the name, “Les Enfants de Medjugorje” “Children of Medjugorje (COM). Sister Emmanuel created “Children of Medjugorje, Inc.” as a not-for-profit 501 (c) 3 organization.
• It has been in existence for 30 years!
• The organization has expanded to fifteen countries - Children of Medjugorje Apostolates around the world
• Some of her books have been translated into twenty-two languages.
• The quotes attributed to Saint Pope Paul II are through his close friend and confidante Bishop Hnilica that the Vatican organization would know nothing about. Many other authors are also quoting Hnilica and even a direct interview.

It seems to me that you may have a bias which is not allowing you to see clearly. You seem to think your way of seeing this is the only way and reject anything else.

Try using your rationale in looking at your own reference by Dražen Kutleša. I have been able to read a number of quotes from this PDF [14] and there seems to be a lot of interpretation going on with a biased outlook.

I challenge your reference. I don't think it is neutral. Clearly onesided.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Maillard also attributed quotes to Cardinal Ratzinger himself. Not just the Pope. Does he knows not what he said? There are many other quotes, bisede Hnilica's that she attributed to both the Pope and the Cardinal. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse a living person of wrongdoing, then you need to back up your accusation. What did Maillard say regarding Ratzinger? Ratzinger and the Pope were not joined at the hip.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what she said about him, all I know that some of the statements were attributed to him, as Ratzinger specifically talks about statements attributed "to Pope and to me". I don't have this list of statements before me. All we know it was compiled by Maillard. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The only place Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) was mentioned in her book was about Cardinal Ratziner was when he removed Zanic from Medjugorje after he turned in a negative report. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Kutleša, Dražen and Ogledalo Pravde

Been reading this [15] when you add it as a reference and what I have seen:

1.Personal opinions and judgements and bias against the apparitions - Here are just three, I can provide much more.

• "unfortunately, they do not abuse of the name of the Holy Father." page 257,
• Bishop Zanic, said, I constantly thought that the previous Medjugorje "apparitions" and Medjugorje "messages" do not have a supernatural ::character. page 283
• This little pdf seems picks a side in the struggle and is against the Franciscan monks. That in itself reeks of a biased source. In the editors note page 9 "...the six “seers” were introduced Bishop Pavao Žanić, on the one hand, as responsible in judging such events, and some Franciscan fathers, pastoral employees in Medjugorje, and some other supporters of Medjugorje phenomenon, on the other hand." What is important to note here is that Cardinal Ratzinger took the dossier from Msgr. Zanic and put the matter in the hands of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference. This document Ogledalo Pravde (The Mirror of Justice)is an outdated, old, replaced document. And in regards to Bishop Peric also a skeptic who took over for Zanic: Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was presided over at the time by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, wrote in a letter to the bishop of Saint-Denis-de-La Réunion that "what Bishop Perić said in his letter …is and remains his personal opinion" which does not represent the official position of the church.

2. This report is old now and outdated - almost 20 years old.

3. This investigation has been replaced by the Ruini report and Archbishop Hoser.

4. In May 2018, Hoser was sent as “Apostolic Visitor” by Pope Francis for an undetermined time to the Saint James parish in Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, run by the Franciscan friars.

5. And Archbishop Hoser told the Polish Catholic news agency, KAI, "All indications are that the revelations will be recognized, perhaps even this year." He added, "Specifically, I think it is possible to recognize the authenticity of the first apparitions as proposed by the Ruini commission. Besides, it is difficult to get another verdict, because it is difficult to believe that six seers will lie for 36 years. What they say has been consistent. They are not mentally incompetent. A strong argument for the authenticity of the apparitions is their faithfulness to the doctrine of the Church." [16]

6.This page needs to be kept up-to-date with the Popes investigations. Adding information from a 20 year old study is ok in a history section of how the church evolved through the investigations. Right now Gov Sheng is using this old and outdated reference throughout the article. There is a lot of "he said she said" and biased statements.

I suggest we either delete the reference completely or the ways it is being used. On Wikipedia we are to present accurate up-to-date information as well as the history. The old investigations should be confined to a History section. Right now it seems Govern Sheng is coming from an extremely biased perspective. If he was looking for truth, he would welcome documentation of truth from all views.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Personal opinions are normal in an original research. What report is outdated? There's no report in Kutleša's book. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Sister Lucia and Medjugorje

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

"If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. [...]

Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. [...]

The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence."

--Governor Sheng (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view."

Sister Emmanuel Maillard's book documents what Bishop Hnilica said that the Pope John Paul II told him - "You see Pavol (Hnilica's first name), "Medjugorje is the continuation and fulfillment of Fatima". This statement was corroborated in the book "Why is He a Saint" written by Slawomir Odir who was appointed as the postulator (an official who presents a plea for beatification or canonization in the Roman Catholic Church) of the cause of beautification and canonization of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Camillo Ruini on May 13, 2005. Note that Bishop Hnilica was alive and able to give his testimony. Also when the Bishop was interviewed about Medjugorje

Oder's reference, four condensed volumes of Positio : In Chapter: A Tribute to the Truth - "The declarations from 114 persons were heard: 35 Cardinals, 20 archbishops & bishops, 11 priests, 5 religious, 3 nuns, 36 lay Catholics, 3 non-Catholics, and a Jew. Their declarations, along with other documents and writings, filled the thousands of pages of the Copia Pubblica from which were drawn the four condensed volumes of Positio." ..."To gather and evaluate all this material, as well as to listen to the witnesses who took part in this process, has been for me and for my colleagues a truly demanding job. Without doubt, it was also indispensable, for it allowed us to corroborate the reputation for saintliness of John Paul II, providing a precious tribute to the truth. A truth that, thanks to the voices of those who have helped to preserve it intact, now shines incontestable and brilliant."

Clearly a very solid reference.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a solid reference. What other authors besides Maillard writes about Sister Lucia having a vision of Our Lady of Medjugorje? Find me even one, biased site that talks about it, besides Maillard. It's a fringe theory from an unreliable source. How on Earth such an extraordinary claim isn't mentioned by anyone else? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution Request

I am going to submit help to solve this conflict. We need steady guidance of a Wikipedia expert. We can request this together which show a good intent to resolve the issues. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have proposed this on your talk page way ago, no reply from you. [17].

I'll give you a summary of your weird behavior.

1) You ask me to discuss my edits before changing the article. 2) I agreed and brought all my proposals to the talk page. 3) You start your rampage; editing here and there, rearranging the entire article, moving sections, adding new ones - all of that without any previous discussion whatsoever!.

What was your reasoning for doing so? How hypocritical! Of course, I'll ask for arbitration here. I'm happy that you confirm that you're aware of my arbitration proposal. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I had to think about it but I see no other way to resolve these problems. I would like a non-biased, neutral, knowledgable, calm expert editor help us to resolve the conflicts here and create a well balanced article. When you submit your request be sure to share that we both want the help and are open to resolution. Try to communicate our needs here without blaming. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also when I am having a discussion on a talk page of an article, I don't respond to messages left on my personal talk page. The discussions are happening here. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that you are telling me not to edit war as you revert my original edits and created the new edit warRed Rose 13 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:, let's refrain ourselves from editing until the arbitration is over. Ok? --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I took out your statement and repeated references. (1) the same references were already in the previous paragraph. (2) I looked up and read each one and they do no relate to the ones I posted.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The article as of Nov. 22, 2020

Governor Sheng, I am not sure what you want exactly but hopefully this will help.

• When Hnilica had lunch with Pope John Paul II, 'the pope took him to his private library and showed him the book by Father Rene Laurentin in which a number of messages from the Queen of Peace were quoted, commenting, "Medjugorje is the continuation of Fatima, it is the completion of Fatima."' Why He is a Saint PAGES 167-169

• The pope then showed his visitor into his library. He picked up a book by Father Laurentin, read some messages of the Gospa, and said, "You see Pavol, Medjugorje is the continuation and fulfillment of Fatima." Medgugorje - The 90's PAGES 69-71

Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Does Oder uses a reference for this passage in particular? --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Here is Oder's reference, four condensed volumes of Positio : In Chapter: A Tribute to the Truth - "The declarations from 114 persons were heard: 35 Cardinals, 20 archbishops & bishops, 11 priests, 5 religioius, 3 nuns, 36 lay Catholics, 3 non-Catholics, and a Jew. Their declarations, along with other documents and writings, filled the thousands of pages of the Copia Pubblica from which were drawn the four condensed volumes of Positio." ..."To gather and evaluate all this material, as well as to listen to the witnesses who took part in this process, has been for me and for my colleagues a truly demanding job. Without doubt, it was also indispensable, for it allowed us to corroborate the reputation for saintliness of John Paul II, providing a precious tribute to the truth. A truth that, thanks to the voices of those who have helped to preserve it intact, now shines incontestable and brilliant." Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Oders book has more testimonials which I am adding to the Popes section. I am assuming it is alright with you.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't understood me. I was asking for this specific statement. I'm not asking about Oder himself. I'm asking did he use Sister Emmanuel Maillard as a reference for the Pope's statement as a reference. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

First,clearly if you read both quotes, it is obvious that he did not. Secondly, being the postulator in charge of the beatification or canonization of Pope John Paul II appointed by Ruini on May 13, 2005, it is obvious that he used direct testimonies.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Obvious to whom? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

To anyone reading both quotes that are stated above.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually not. Similar claims can be found on the internet with almost identical circumstances. What I'm asking is he using any reference for this? Or it's unreferenced? You know, he could have had written "This was told to me by Hnilica" in a footnote. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am bringing all of the references to the reference section. I am about half way through. Some references were left orphaned. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:, how come you're citing page 7 here with a quote "the pope then showed his visitor into his library. He picked up a book by Father Laurentin, read some messages of the Gospa, and said, "You see Pavol, Medjugorje is the continuation and fulfillment of Fatima.", and then the same claim is referenced by the page 167-69 in the article? Is it p. 7 or pp. 167-69? You were very specific that it is the page 7 of the Preface. Are other claims about Krieger, Tomasek, Dragičević, Pfeifer, Skwarnicki also located at pp. 167-69? Can you give a special page for each claim? Are you sure you're not quoting from http://www.totus2us.com/vocation/blessed-virgin-mary/our-lady-of-medjugorje/? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is confusing to you. Let me repeat.

• (1) For Why He is a Saint - the reference IS their body of testimonies which is so vast that 4 volumes of them had to be created. It is mentioned in our other conversations. Page 7 in Why He is a Saint - tells us about when the author was appointed as the postulater and page 167 - 169 refers to this quote: When Hnilica had lunch with Pope John Paul II, 'the pope took him to his private library and showed him the book by Father Rene Laurentin in which a number of messages from the Queen of Peace were quoted, commenting, "Medjugorje is the continuation of Fatima, it is the completion of Fatima."'
• (2) For the testimonies of Krieger, Tomasek, Dragicevic, Pfeifer, Skwarnicki Yes they are all mentioned on pages 167-169 of Why He is a Saint. No I will not break it down into individual pages. That will just add clutter to the references.
• (3) For Medjugorje, The 90's The quote: "The pope then showed his visitor into his library. He picked up a book by Father Laurentin, read some messages of the Gospa, and said, "You see Pavol, Medjugorje is the continuation and fulfillment of Fatima" is found on PAGES 69-71

Stop accusing me of lying and saying I am quoting from some website in your imaginations.

If you don't believe me, go to Amazon and buy the book yourself.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding (3), the whole quote is extended to three pages? 69, 70 and 71? --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Perosonal talk

Such personal talk in particular was denied by the Vatican... Writing it as "however", looks like these private talks were somehow not denied by the Vatican and only certain official statements were denied. Private talks were denied. Get it? --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The only problem is, is that these private talks were PRIVATE and shared publicly and most with Slawomir Oder who as you know was appointed as the postulator (an official who presents a plea for beatification or canonization in the Roman Catholic Church) of the cause of beautification and canonization of Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Camillo Ruini informed him on May 13, 2005. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

How is someone designated to promote someone as a saint unbiased? I don't mind Oder as an author, I'm just wondering whom is he using as a reference. Surely, he either talked to Hnilica (who was way dead when he wrote the book, or to Maillard, or he just read her book?) --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually Bishop Hnilica was very much alive when Oder was giving the assignment in 2005. He was designated to DETERMINE if he was a saint, hence the 4 volumes of testimonies.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

He wasn't assigned to determine whether John Paul is a saint (that's the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints). It's not how it works. The mechanism is much more complex. Whatever. This has nothing to do with the subject. What's important is what is his reference in the book, which was written when? Much after Hnilica's death, right? --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Page 178 Why He is a saint: Epilogue A Tribute to the Truth. On May 18, 2005 Cardinal Camillo Ruini appealed/invited the faithful to "communicate all reports from which it is possible to determine evidence favorable or contrary to the reputation for saintliness of Pope John Paul II. On June 28, 2005 the opening session was held of the diocesan investigation into the life, virtues, and reputation for saintliness of the Pope. Bishop Hnilica death was on October 8, 2006.

There was plenty of time for Bishop Hnilica to submit his testimony in response to this appeal. After all of these testimonies were gathered and placed into 4 volumes, Oder would then right his report. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So basically, this is just your opinion, unsupported by evidence? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if you cannot trust Slawomir Oder the Postulator appointed by Cardinal Camillo Ruini to oversee this process properly. I think for your answer since you cannot trust Ruini or Oder or understand that Hnilica was alive, you will have to write to them and ask them if their process of gathering facts was faulty. A reminder here that the 4 volumes of testimonies gathered is his reference. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: WP:OR – Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. 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.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.) --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To demonstrate. There's a book in which an author writes: "Jane Doe had tested positive on drugs"; and theres the second author that writes: "Jane Doe was druged". I cite these two sources and write: "Jane Doe was a drug adict". See the logic? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The article as of Nov. 9, 2020

Started a new section because it was getting too long to add a comment. @Sundayclose: @Elizium23: @Governor Sheng: I copied and pasted my comments on 11/9 from The Article as of Oct 24th discussion see below:

I had the whole day to edit and I did a tremendous amount of research, found references where needed and I put in a lot of time on this page. I think you will be happy with everything I did. If not, please let me know here and we can discuss it. I spent a lot of time improving the page, adding photos and some new information. Let me know what you all think. Also no one has been around for a couple of days. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

G Sheng you reverted all of my edits without reading them all and named them all as onesided. If you revert them all again, I will be forced to invite more editors to join us.Also come here and explain your problem.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I reverted them, as we have agreed - no major inclusions without discussion. What you are doing is a definition of being hypocritical. You insisted that I discuss my edits BEFORE adding them to the article, which I did. Not only that, but I also took so much time to actually TRANSLATE my sources, because something "felt off" to you. I assure you, nothing's off nor I misused my sources, but because of your insistence, I agreed to translate them. I gave so much effort to that. And you, coming again doing the thing you told me I shouldn't and telling me that I should discuss "my problem" with your edits is effing hypocritical. Invite the whole Wikipedia if you like. Even better. Moreover, I demand a quote from your sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:, please be careful not to break the 3rr rule. --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

yes and the same rule applies to you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I just wrote a very long response that got kicked off by your addition comment. So I have to start over. You are doing blanket reverting. You are reverting edits that include, spacing, spelling, researching and adding photos, sizing photos and placing, etc. I researched and added two new facts along with their references that you reverted which is against Wikipedia Guidelines. I think you should study my edits and find the part that is bothering you and bring it here so we can discuss. It was the editor Sundayclose who insisted you provide your translations from Croatian and the he insisted you find a native Croatian to check your editing. I did however agree with. No need to provide a quote from my sources because if you had read the edits you would have already seen them. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Happend to me many times. I also researched and added few new facts and referenced them. You removed them. Which is, of course, against WP Guidelines. You should study my edits and tell me what is bothering you, and I'll listen to you. I need a quote from your sources, especially part about Fatima you included. It's a c/p from the internet. --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok agreed I will go through all of your additions that I see as a problem and bring them here. This will take some time so in the mean time I am placing your Controversial section at the end of the article. Be specific about what you need - provide a link. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:, I'm still waiting for a quote from Sister Emmanuel's book. What I noticed is that it's a c/p from the internet. Please provide a reliable quote. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC) @Governor Sheng: I am now repeating what I need in order to give you the quote - Be specific about what you need - provide a link. Thank you Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I am going to be adding to the section about Sister Lucia. Leave it as it is. I incorporated some of what you added.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia guides us to create a balanced article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Funny to see how you completely went to rampage considering that previously you wanted me to discuss my edits before incorporating them. However, be assured, all of your edits will be reviewed properly and your sneaky edits will not go unnoticed. Stop removing Ratzinger's statement about John Paul's alleged sympathies towards Medjugorje. He was referring to those quotes you mentioned. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Sister Emmanuel Maillard's claims. Provide a quote from the book which supports your edits. I noticed that your quote is mostly a c/p from the internet. Quote it properly. Second. This cannot be included as a special section. An extraordinary claim such as this interestingly enough cannot be found anywhere else except in her book. Neither do supporting websites of the Medjugorje phenomenon mention this ever! Maillard isn't a good scholarly source, as she is never quoted in any other scientific paper, as far as I may notice, nor is her claim mentioned by anyone else. Moreover, even Cardinal Ratzinger said that the list of quotes about him and Pope John Paul is a "mere fabrication" or "complete invention", depends how you translate the German term "frei erfunden". She's highly questionable as a source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Still you have not given me the quote in question. Either copy and and paste it here or provide a link. Emmanuel is not the only reference supporting this quote. The quotes are from confidantes of Pope John Paul II. They did not come from list. Again the person editing here is pushing his own point of view which is against Wikipedia guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Lucia's nephew, Father Salinho, who is a Salesian priest and lives in Portugal, reported that Sister Lucia had not only continued receiving visions of Fatima but she also confirmed the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje. In some of these apparitions, the Virgin Mary spoke to Sister Lúcia of her continued work in Medjugorje.[20] Pope John Paul II confirmed what the Virgin Mary said when he told Bishop Hnilica, "...Medjugorje is the continuation and it is the completion of Fatima!"[21]

This is the part. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Now, regarding Ratzinger's rebuke of Sister Emmanuel's claims. He said that all the quotes collected by Emmanuel in connection to Pope's and his statements are false. This includes writing of Bishop Hnilica and Murilo Sebastiao Ramos Krieger.

I'll also ask you to provide me quotes for these edits.

Privately to a number of Catholic friends Pope John Paul II confided on how he felt about Medjugorje. Monsignor Murilo Sebastiao Ramos Krieger, Archbishop of Florianopolis in Brazil was going on a pilgrimage to Medjugorje for a fourth time and Pope John Paul II confided and confirmed to Krieger that "Medjugorje is the spiritual center for the world!"[55] Cardinal Frantisek Tomasek, Archbishop Emeritus of Prague, heard Pope John Paul II say that, if he wasn't pope, he would have liked to have been in Medjugorje helping with the pilgrimages.[55]

--Governor Sheng (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Gov Sheng is making up things to promote his own point of view. The quote above came from the book "Why He is a Saint." If you had looked at the references he would have known that. Apparently Ratzinger was not a confidante of Saint Pope John Paul II and these three people were. These were PRIVATE documented exchanges that Ratzinger would no nothing about. There are hundreds if not thousands of people that have their view about this. But these were PRIVATE exchanges. Gov Sheng is stretching the truth in order to fit his own point of view.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In regards to Father Salinho which is also documented in Why He is a Saint - that is why I put the reference there. Here is the quote: "Medjugorje is he continuation of Fatima, it is the completion of Fatima." which is actually in the Article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, I have removed your additions (I believe there were two paragraphs) from the JPII article and request that you justify them here before re-adding and before returning to the edit-war with Governor Sheng. Consider yourself outnumbered.

The JPII quotes are sensationalistic and there is a good chance they have been manufactured. There is a great traffic in dead saints false quotations, I have seen it with Mother Teresa time and again. Therefore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I would like to see at least three independent, reliable secondary sources that support the material. Nothing self-published, nothing by vanity presses or mom-and-pop Medjugorje-cottage-industry presses. We need solid sourcing for this. With more and better sources I would be unable to stand in your way; hopefully it would also satisfy Governor Sheng. But I have a very thin skin for true believers in a condemned apparition such as this one, and so mark my words, I will be watching these pages for shenanigans and stepping in where necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing on Wikipedia for about 8 years now and know how to provide references. I've researched Sister Emmanuels background and found her to be credible. I can provide what I found if that would be helpful, (2) Bishop Hnilica shares this conversation on his tape "Fatima". (3) I think you might have missed the third reference "Why He Is A Saint." Also you are mistaken about me, I am not a Catholic nor have I ever been. And I am not involved in shenanigans. I take editing on Wikipedia very seriously, I suggest you ask questions rather than accuse a fellow editor. Sorry but your bias is showing when you make statements like "condemned apparition" when in reality Pope Francis says to reporters ..."the original apparitions more than three decades ago deserve further study, but voiced doubt in the supposed ongoing visions." [18] It is far from settled and my intensive research is showing me this. I welcome your input from a neutral, unbiased intent. Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The book "Medjugorje: The 90's" by Sister Emmanuel is not self published and is published by Queenship Publishing Company [19] She has written 5 other books. The book "Why He Is A Saint" published by Rizzoli International Publications, NY. [20] Authors: Monsignor Slawomir Odor, Judicial Vicar of the Appelation Tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome. and Saverio Gaeta Editor in chief of Famiglia Christiana and authored books on major Catholic figures, including Mother Teresa and Padre Pio.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I found the little pdf created by Don Dražen Kutleša. You are quoting from a PDF not a published book. (1) I think your reference is not acceptable. (2) Plus you are using google translate to post on Wikipedia. (3) On top of that from page 283 using google translate, like you are: all it says it is a memorandum of various alleged The Pope and his statements on Medjugorje We have no idea which statements or even if all are included. (4) Another book, my reference, has the same information (5) these are three PRIVATE conversations with the pope that Ratzinger would have NEVER known about. (6) It seems to me Kutlesa is biased. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Kutlesa's pdf looks like it is self-published and only 3000 copies were made. I used google translate just like Govenor Sheng is doing to read some of the document. We need all references on this page to be held at the same standard. Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol. It's not self-published. It's not a pdf. It's a book. :) It's published by the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar. [21]. The Ordinariate just uploaded it in a pdf form. That's it. Also, saying Kutleša is biased while presenting a Medjugorje agitator as a reliable source is really funny. :) His book was used as a source for scholarly works ([22]) at Charles University (Prague, Czechia [23]), University of Osijek (Osijek, Croatia [24]), and Bursa Uludağ University (Bursa, Turkey [25]). Sister Emmanuel's books weren't used anywhere as a reference at any higher education institutions as far as I'm aware. I'm not using google translate. I speak Croatian very well. Ako mi ne vjeruješ, zovni nekoga od hrvatskih wikipedista da ti to posloži u glavi. Mogu pričat dijalektom: po dalmatinski da ti rečen po stoti put da rvacki vrlo dobro govorin ili buš po zagorski kak da ti velim da hrvatski dobro govorim. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If Ratzinger rebuked those statements, we should hold him as a reliable source. He was a close associate of John Paul's. This must be mentioned in the article. All of the statements collected by Sister Emanuel were rebuked by Cardinal Ratzinger as "mere fabrications". That's a fact. Also, the Vatican's State Secretariate itself rebuked Hnilica's claim as well. So, we're not dealing only with Ratzinger here. Thus, Hnilica's claim is highly, highly questionable. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:. Again. I'm asking you to provide me full quotes from the sources I told you about. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for calling other editors to this page. I have given you the full quotes already not sure why you can't find them. I am off to an appointment and will continue the discussion when I return. Hopefully the coming editors will read the full talk page before moving forward. I will be presenting a BIO on Sister Emmanuel when I return. Also bear in mind that Ratzinger was never with the Pope in all of his meetings or with him 24/7 and has no idea about whether it happened or not. You can put his statement in but it doesn't relate to the Popes personal feelings. Perhaps Ratzinger was coming from the "official" church statements not the Pope personal ones.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Provide full quotes from Oder's book as well as Maillard's book. You're avoiding to provide a full quote. I think you're finding random quotes on the Internet, and just use the source their using. (Oder as an example) --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• What is the question in this RfC? Nyx86 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng:@Nyx86: Hello Nyx86, Thank you for asking. We need a Wikipedia expert editor to guide us both as we work on this page. We have brought many things to the talk page but never seem to be able to come to an agreement. I am trying to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. I cannot speak for the other editor about this. I know that Wikipedia likes the pages to be balanced with all views stated using credible sources. When I looked at this page about a month ago I noticed that controversy was spread all over the page with no real introduction to what Our Lady of Medjugorje is. It was on my watchlist. I then felt it was important to bring balance to the page and to use updated current information. To me it seems "Governor Sheng" has a certain viewpoint and seems to have a hard time seeing the whole picture and other viewpoints. But GS also knows we need guidance. Are you up for the task?Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me the same. Using sources from Sister Emmanuel Maillard, a prominent supporter of Medjugorje as an independent and reliable source. Yeah, sure, the article needs to be balanced, but with reliable sources. To me, it seems you're just adding some random quotes positive of Medjugorje here and there, with the only goal to "balance" the article. It's not how things work. Now, there are many issues here, some of them are neutrality and reliability of the sources; fringe theories, the structure of the article. We've been editing this article for longer than a month with no agreement. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing war

@Nyx86:@Governor Sheng: Tell me Governor Sheng what is wrong with this sentence since each author did share Hnilica's private, personal conversations he had with Pope John Paul II including his views on Medjugorje. How would you word this truth differently? This truth also needs to be on Wikipedia.

Here is what you keep deleting: Authors Sister Emanuel Maillard, Slawomir Odor, Antonio Gaspari, and Marie Czernin, interviewer of Bishop Hnilica all shared Hnilica's private, personal conversations he had with Pope John Paul II including his views on Medjugorje.

Let me tell you this. They mention one specific talk Hnilica had with the Pope. You added this sentence in order to somehow bypass all the rebukes from the Vatican with your own conclusion, stating "However [I deleted this word], authors [...] all shared Hnilica's private, personal conversations [...]. First of all, they mention just one conversation he had with the Pope; second similar private conversation he had was rebuked. Not one source you mentioned states: "Yes, there have been rebukes, but look, we're sharing private conversations here, so the rebukes don't apply here". This is what you've tried to accomplish with this sentence. Read the intro of WP:OR, and you'll get the idea of what you've been doing. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A couple of times I have taken the time to read all the references you supplied and I saw no mention of the Bishops statement: "...Medjugorje is the continuation and it is the completion of Fatima!" There was some other quote on p256 that does not apply here. The issue that you keep avoiding is that Pope John Paul II had many private audiences with people. Of course which means, NO ONE ELSE IS IN THE ROOM. Ratzinger would not have been there and would have no idea what was said. Since Bishop Hnilica spoke about it in an interview and to many others including the team working with Oder for the Vatican, the truth that the Pope said that is undeniable. Also this brings up your heavily used "reference" a pdf in croatian [26] which is outdated and no longer prevalent. The Vatican has moved beyond Zanic and his investigation a long time ago and in fact took the investigation away from him and moved him out of Medjugorje. The focus is now on the Ruini investigation along with Archbishop Hoser who is the apostolic visitor for the parish of Medjugorje. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My little PDF cannot be outdated, since it isn't about any investigation, it just mentions the facts that happened until its publication in 2001. It's not a report, it's not an investigaion. It's monography. All the events that occurred until 2001 can be referenced with my little PDF. Facts don't change with time, you know. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Truth to be told, I'm not even sure why we consider Hnilica to be a reliable locutor here. The guy was convicted for financial fraud, falsely presented himself as the Pope's personal delegate and even prominent author as Chris Maunder state: "However, Hnilica's reputation does not really help the cause of the apparitions, as he has been tainted with the scandal of the Vatican banking crisis of the 1980s". So one of his statements attributed to the Pope was also found to be false [but only after it was reported to the Vatican for confrimation], and let's pretend the other statement, which nobody reported to the Vatican for confirmation, is somehow correct. Makes sense. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that you are a bully and your path is to destroy the "enemy". You go after me and accuse from your limited perception or lies. Well you have met your match. If you are going to accuse him of things, then you need to provide proof. I read that he was cleared of all charges. We can take the word of your little report which was put aside with Zanic? Zanic was pushed out of Medjugorje and the investigation because the report was so bad.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

He was cleared since he acted under duress, but still committed financial fraud. I'm not going for ad hominem here. He wasn't cleared of falsely presenting himself as the Pope's personal delegate or for falsely attributing statements to other people, including the Pope. These two latter facts are connected to the article here. Be assured, you'll be reported for personal insults. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And I reported your behavior as well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Your words "an editor is not allowed to make their own conclusions not stated by the reliable sources explicitly." If you think I did this, then you need to show where I did this. Also you deleted 4 sources with your edit war. Why is that? In my research an editor doesn't delete another editors sources but can put a note there that questions the source. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I just see accusations toward Hnilica with no proof... once again. I do see a lot of gossip in your posts on the page and on this talk page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Also Sundayclose pointed out concerns for your translating and asked you to translate sections and then bring in a person fluent in Croatian to check your translations. I have not seen that yet.Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Do all of these sources explicitly state: "These are private conversations" or do they characterise these conversations as private? If not, it's your own conclusion made to bypass the Vatican's rebukes. Regarding the translations, 80% of them are there. I'll add others when someone really comes to check if these 80% are correct. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Google Translating to English?

I have noticed a number of odd wording throughout this page. Here is one example: Dragičević wrote several books, including an autobiography titled Moje srce će pobijediti (My heart will win) [27] It seems you might be using google or another translater to translate from Croatian to English. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok then please explain how you called Soldo's book My Heart Will Win when the actual title in English is My Heart Will Triumph? This is only one example of many translation problems.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes, there are many ways to translate one term you know. Pobijediti in Croatian is to win, trijumfirati would be to triumph. I'm not her manager. Why the hell would I care how her book will be translated? --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would hope that you would want everything on Wikipedia to be accurate.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My translation is correct. Win/Triumph is just a matter of taste... Marketing reasons. Her manager probably thought that triumph sounds better. What do I care... --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is our duty as Wikipedia editors to make sure it is accurate which means you should have looked up her book to be sure it was translated properly.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, different publishers can have different translations of some original title. The translation is correct. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The English translation is obviously only done in one way and here it is [28] It is very concerning to me that you cannot accept that you are wrong. It brings up concern that in your other translations, there are errors. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you speak Croatian? Pobijediti means to win, trijumfirati means to triumph. These are synonymous, as you can see here for example. Translating titles, be it of books or movies, is a different thing. Sometimes literal translation isn't possible at all. I'm amazed how you don't see that to win and to triumph are synonymous even in English. I brought most of my translations in Croatian to the talk page, everyone is free to check them. You're obviously lacking basic translating skills. For example, car in English can be translated as auto, automobil or kola in Serbo-Croatian. Same as pobijediti can be translated to win or to triumph. Literally translated, the title of Dragičević's book is "to win" (since it uses the term pobijediti), why the publisher chose a different word is just a metter of choice. Stop being silly for heaven's sake. Let me put it to you this way. In Croatian, when one says "moram srat", it can be translated as "I need to poop" or "I need to take a crap", whatever translation you use, there will be shit in the toilet. Get it? The result is the same. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you but what you said does not apply to the actual name of a book. We can't second guess or choose what we think is best, we have to be 100% accurate. So you try translating and then you as a wikipedia editor needs to verify that it is correct. With a book that is easy, just look on Amazon or Barnes & Noble or other book sellers to check your accuracy. It doesn't really matter if I see that triumph and win are synonymous. What matters is if you post the perfectly accurate name of the book that Mirjana Soldo wrote!! Pretty basic. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So your point was? --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, Sundayclose pointed out concerns of your translating and asked you to translate sections and then bring in a person fluent in Croatian to check your translations. I have not seen that yet.Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

80% of my translations are here on the talk page. I'll add remainging 20% when someone cheks these 80%. Do not worry. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:, I think you can quit this nonsense that I'm using Google translate. You have a confirmation from a native Croatian that I can speak Croatian. [29]. @Mr rnddude: Hvala na ovoj neslužbenoj potvrdi, namučih se radi jedne gluposti obične. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje translations

@Governor Sheng:@Mr rnddude:@Slp1:@Sundayclose: Hello Mr rnddude this is your comment to me but I could find no way to respond where you posted this. "Red Rose, you do not have the competence to judge who is or is not capable of reading, writing, speaking, or translating from Croatian. English sources are preferred, not mandatory. I am incensed by your attempts to portray Sheng as a danger to you. If anything, they've been unnecessarily patient with your insulting conduct."

Your absolutely right I am not competent in Croatian and if you had been reading about what is going on the talk page you would have known that it was another editor, Sunday Close who asked him to translate a good amount of material which is now in archive #3 which I support. This editor requested that Governor Sheng do that and then find a person that is competent in Croatian to verify the accuracy of them all. Governor Sheng needs to let that editor know as well. And I did not judge his ability with his mistake of My Heart Will Triumph. There are concerns regarding the English part of the translations that are a problem. In regards to the book My Heart Will Triumph is not about whether it is Triumph or Win. In America when quoting the title of a book it needs to be accurate. My Heart Will Triumph is the name of Soldo book! see here [30]. So after he translated, he then needed to verify that he had the name correct stated. Wikipedia expects accuracy. But he didn't and said her book's was My Heart Will Win. I have not been insulting but just asking for accuracy. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it was you who sensed "something off" in my translation. :) - Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje#The article as of Oct. 24, 2020

I notice you are using news article from Yugoslavia and there is no way that we English speakers can read the article or check the news source for validity. This is a problem and the only way I can see resolving this, is for you to find valid references that are in English and that are verified as a reliable reference. Otherwise we will need to remove the reference and the information from it.

Thank you Sundayclose. There is another problem. (1) G Sheng first put in footnotes that he either translated or used Google translate and now I believe some of the footnotes and references are all in Croatian. This is a problem for the English focused Wikipedia. (2) I also noticed they seemed off. (3) Also he picks and choosea words from the reference and they seem out of context. I always go to the article that is reference to check for that. I suggest he find the reference in English and post that.

...And your conclusion that I'm unable to speak Croatian and use Google translate based solely on the book title. - Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje#Google Translating to English?

I have noticed a number of odd wording throughout this page. Here is one example: Dragičević wrote several books, including an autobiography titled Moje srce će pobijediti (My heart will win) [25] It seems you might be using google or another translater to translate from Croatian to English.

So yes, you did act like you're competent in Croatian. I'm not sure what you tried to achieve with this comment when everything you wrote previously is easily checked. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Think what you will, the truth is all there. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no trouble believing that the title of the work was not translated literally. This is a common occurrence. The famous Bosnian film Ničija Zemlja (lit. Nobody's Land) is titled 'No Man's Land' in English. Yes, obviously, the article needs to use the correct title.

On the matter of translations, I have looked at some of the longer passages in the archive. They are decent translations, barring the occasional grammatical issue in English. Sundayclose asked that another fluent editor show their own translations for comparison, I'll do one, but I see no reason to provide translations for each passage. If I'm capable of writing this comment in English, you can safely assume I'm capable of writing most any other too. The same applies to any other language. I'll take the first paragraph of Ivan Dragičević because I've already gone through the 'Chronicle of Apparitions':

Ivan je rođen u Mostaru, 25. svibnja 1965., a njegovi roditelji Stanko i Zlata borave u Bijakovićima u župi Međugorje. Završivši osnovno obrazovanje, pohađao je prvi razred srednje škole u Čitluku, ali ga nije položio. U kolovozu 1981. javio se u sjemenište kao kandidat Hercegovačke franjevačke provincije, već poznat po svojim "viđenjima". Poslan je u gimnaziju u Visoko. I u sjemeništu je imao gotovo svakodnevna "ukazanja". Budući da u Visokom prve godine nije uspio, ni nakon dva pokušaja, položiti popravni ispit, smatralo se da će biti uspješniji u školi ako prijeđe u dubrovačko sjemenište. Tako je ujesen 1982. iz franjevačke gimnazije u Visokom bio je premješten u dubrovačku humanističku. Dao se na učenje povijesti i drugih predmeta, a još više na "ukazanja". Međutim, ni u Dubrovniku se nije pokazao dostatno zainteresiranim za školu koju je napustio u siječnju 1983. I otišao kući. Ivan ima svakodnevna "ukazanja" od 24. lipnja 1981. do dana današnjega.

I translate this passage as:

Ivan was born in Mostar on 25 May 1965. His parents, Stanko and Zlata, live in Bijakovići in the parish of Medjugorje. Having completed elementary school, he attended the first year of secondary school in Čitluk, but did not graduate. In August of 1981, he joined the seminary as a candidate for the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina, already known for his visions. He was sent to the Gymnasium in Visoko [where] he witnessed 'apparitions' almost daily. Because he failed to pass the remedial exam in his first year, even after two attempts, it was deemed that he would have more success in school if he transferred to the seminary in Dubrovnik. Thus in Autumn of 1982, he was transferred from the Franciscan Gymnasium in Visoko to the Dubrovnik [school of] Humanities. He gave himself to the studies of history and other subjects, and even more so to [the study of] 'Apparitions'. However, even in Dubrovnik he did not show sufficient interest in school, which he left in January 1983 and went home.

Feel free to compare my translation of the passage against Governor Sheng's. I've put certain grammatical amendments in brackets as they do not appear as such in the original text. [I edit conflicted with both of you in writing this]. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect thank you Mr rnddude for taking the time to do this. Please note I copied and pasted Govenor Sheng's translation of the same paragraph below for comparison:

"Ivan was born in Mostar on 25 May 1965, and his parents Stanko and Zlata live in Bijakovići in the parish of Medjugorje. After finishing elementary school, he attended the first grade of high school in Čitluk, but did not pass it. In August 1981, he entered the seminary as a candidate of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina, already known for his "visions". He was sent to the grammar school in Visoko. And in the seminary he had almost daily "apparitions." Since he failed to pass the remedial exam in Visoko in his first year, even after two attempts, it was thought that he would be more successful in school if he moved to the Dubrovnik seminary. Thus, in the autumn of 1982, he was transferred from the Franciscan Gymnasium in Visoko to the Dubrovnik School of Humanities. He devoted himself to learning history and other subjects, and even more to "apparitions." However, even in Dubrovnik, he did not show enough interest in the school he left in January 1983 and went home. Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I used google to translate the same paragraph for comparison:
Ivan was born in Mostar on May 25, 1965, and his parents Stanko and Zlata live in Bijakovići in the parish of Medjugorje. After finishing primary education, he attended the first grade of high school in Citluk, but did not pass it. In August 1981, he entered the seminary as a candidate of the Herzegovinian Franciscan Province, already known for his "visions". He was sent to the grammar school in Visoko. And in the seminary he had almost daily "apparitions." Since he failed to pass the remedial exam in Visoko in his first year, even after two attempts, it was thought that he would be more successful in school if he moved to the Dubrovnik seminary. Thus, in the autumn of 1982, he was transferred from the Franciscan Gymnasium in Visoko to the Dubrovnik Humanities. He devoted himself to learning history and other subjects, and even more to "apparitions." However, even in Dubrovnik he did not show enough interest in the school he left in January 1983 and went home. John has daily “apparitions” from June 24, 1981 to the present day. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A word about sources

@Red Rose 13: I moved this part of the discussion to its own section as it is related but separate.

Curious as to your sources that "Also Zanic was relieved of his investigation and expelled from Medjugorje."?? He retired at the standard age of 75 and was succeeded by his co-adjutor. If anyone was unhappy with his administration, it seems odd they would have appointed his assistant. Manannan67 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am giving you a wide variety of references with their statements regarding this issue, He was expelled from his involved in the apparitions of Medjugorje:

(1) "Cardinal Ratzinger told him (and Bishop Zanic, a man of clarity and of no duplicity, revealed it openly): "No, you are going to dissolve your diocesan commission. The verdict is transferred to the Bishops Conference." [31]

(2)"Towards the end of 1986, Zanic traveled to Rome to inform the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his views on Medjugorje, but Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation, transferred decisional authority to the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference." [32]

(3) "the President for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, entrusted the examination of the events into the hands of the Yugoslavian bishops' conference." [33]

(4) ..."Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, that the Vatican, rather than accept Bishop Žanić’s negative recommendation, removed from him the authority to decide the fate of Medjugorje, placing the responsibility within the hands of the Episcopal Committee of Yugoslavia." [34]

(5) "since Bishop Zanic was making no progress the Vatican in May of 1986 asked the Yugoslav Bishop Conference to set up a new commission" [35]

(6) "the Vatican dissolved Bishop Zanic's commission and established a new commission, comprised of all the bishops of Yugoslavia (BCY) and headed by its cardinal. They and they alone were given the authority to set up a new study of the apparitions, after which they would make an official recommendation to the Pope....the Bishop of Mostar was expressly instructed not to involve himself further in the matters of the apparitions, about which he was to remain silence." from the book "Medjugorje The Message" by Weible pages 274 - 281

(7) "In 1986 Monsignor Zanic provided to Cardinal Ratzinger a negative report on the apparitions, but the Cardinal removed Zanic from the case and gave the investigation over to a new Commission formed of Yugoslavian bishops with Monsignor Komarica at its head." [36]

(8) "1986: Bishop submits a negative decision about Medjugorje to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF), which at the time was led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later, Pope Benedict). 1986: CDF, under Cardinal Ratzinger rejects the findings of the bishops commission, disbands the commission the local bishop created, and creates a new commission to investigate Medjugorje. From that point on, the local bishop (and all his successors) were stripped of all jurisdiction over the apparitions of Medjugorje." [37]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There is herein listed (1)René Laurentin, (2) Antonio Gaspari, (3) Medjugorje Web, (4) Medjugorje.com, (5) Janice T. Connell, (6) Wayne Weible, (7) Emmanuel Maillard, (8) Tekton Ministries. Each and every one of them appears to be a pro-apparition partisan. Just about each and every one on them has a vested interest in the sale of books, religious articles, and/or pilgrimage packages. (I am not sufficiently familiar with Gaspari to note an obvious financial incentive.) Laurentin is rightly renowned for his work on Fatima but should be taken with a grain of salt re Medjugorje, particularly since he had a falling out with Žanić. (He also endorsed Vassula Rydén whose "messages" the CDF banned from all Catholic premises.) Each of these "sources" present the information according to their own perspective, which is hardly favorable to a prelate opposing what they're endorsing. Invariably they make it sound as if Žanić was somehow chastised by the CDF. However, "entrusted the examination of the events into the hands of the Yugoslavian bishops' conference." is somewhat different than "removed from him the authority to decide the fate of Medjugorje". "...[D]isbands the commission the local bishop created," is clearly wrong as one does not "disband" a defunct commission.

You yourself wrote, "Zanic was relieved of his investigation and expelled from Medjugorje." This is not the case. The second diocesan commission completed its work in May 1986. Žanić was not "relieved of his investigation"; the diocesan investigation was already finished. Pilgimages and promotion of the cult continued unabated. Relations between Žanić and the pro-apparition faction, particularly, the Franciscans were not good. Any further decrees on the part of the bishop would likely only have exacerbated the situation, and would probably have been ignored anyway. The CDF suggested taking it to the national level. According to Cardinal Kuharic,

In accordance with the canonical regulations which treat the matters of discernment of alleged apparitions and private revelations, the Diocesan Commission formed for that purpose by the Bishop of Mostar, the local Ordinary, investigated the events of Medjugorje. During the inquiry these events under investigation have appeared to go much beyond the limits of the diocese. Therefore, on the basis of the said regulations, it became fitting to continue the work at the level of the Bishops' Conference, and thus to form a new Commission for that purpose.Kuharic, Franjo, Press Release, Glas Koncila, January 18, 1987

Žanić was not "expelled from Medjugorje"; he remained the diocesan ordinary until his retirement in 1993. Nor was he "expelled from his involved in the apparitions of Medjugorje" since he was a member of the Yugoslav Bishops Conference. He and Cardinal Kuharic issued a joint statement at the time of the creation of the Bishops' Commission which was presented as a continuation of the by then extinct diocesan commission. However, it is understandable if someone relying on the above-mentioned so-called "sources" got a somewhat different impression. That also illustrates why if any of them should be used in the article it should be with great caution. - as well as those diametrically opposed. Manannan67 (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note that it was the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia and Herzegovina that requested the Ruini Commission because "the reported apparitions of Medjugorje were becoming a source of division in the Church".(CWNews.com, 10 October 2001) -Rome doesn't move unless it has to.

I have another life outside of Wikipedia. I started this at 5am and will need to continue the study in between other things. Here is my first impression of what you just wrote:

Following your logic when you say that each person who wrote a book has invested interest in sales, then logically ALL authors have vested interest in sales and would be disqualified on Wikipedia as being unreliable.

• Rene Laurentin was an ordained priest and had no vested interest in sales.
  
• Emmanuel Maillard is a nun who started Children of Medjugorje, Inc. which is a Roman Catholic, not-for-profit, lay missionary organization. Her motivation is not monetary.
  
• Wayne Weible founded Weible Columns in 1989 as a non-profit [38]
• The website Medjugorje Website [39] - gives thing freely. Found nothing being sold.
• Anthony Gaspari's article was published in the November 1996 issue of "Inside the Vatican."
• Inside the Vatican - About[40]

I will continue to study the others as I have time.

Important to note: The results of Zanics investigations did not become the official position of the church.

Instead another investigation was started by Bishop Ratzinger who oversaw the CDC. See here: [41]

Wikipedia would want a balanced article that shows all views not just the churches view.

From your statement: "entrusted the examination of the events into the hands of the Yugoslavian bishops' conference." is somewhat different than "removed from him the authority to decide the fate of Medjugorje" The first statement is very tactful but the truth is the Vatican did not use Zanics investigation to make an official statement for the church instead created a new commission. If it was acceptable to Bishop Ratzinger, he would have announced the results of Zanic’s investigation.

“According to Cardinal Kuharic, In accordance with the canonical regulations which treat the matters of discernment of alleged apparitions and private revelations, the Diocesan Commission formed for that purpose by the Bishop of Mostar, the local Ordinary, investigated the events of Medjugorje. During the inquiry these events under investigation have appeared to go much beyond the limits of the diocese. Therefore, on the basis of the said regulations, it became fitting to continue the work at the level of the Bishops' Conference, and thus to form a new Commission for that purpose.”

Again a very tactful statement from the church. Also note that Zanic is only a part of the commission and is not in charge any more.

To be continued as I have time.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You're analysis appears to make little sense. Interest in book sales is precisely what Zanic accused Laurentin of, that and an overfond attraction to a couple of the seers. The ruling of the BCY which became the official position of the church is exactly the same as that of the second diocesan commission, non constat de supernaturalitate. If anything, it ratified the earlier finding. Manannan67 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Accusing an adversary of something is easy to do but it doesn't relate to reality without proof. It is just his opinion, like gossip. I find it interesting that Bishop Ratzinger did not accept Zanic's investigation and had another commission do it all over again. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is nothing (apart fr Zanic's detarctors) that suggests that Ratzinger did not accept the earlier findings. By that time, pilgrimages to Medjugorje were being promoted in Europe and North America. There would've been no point at all in Zanic forming a third commission. It was time to take it to another level. To say that the local commission's findings were rejected is, at the least, a bit disingenuous in light of the fact that the Yugoslav bishops came up with the same finding.

ALL your sources consist of uncritical promotion devoid of any context or analysis, and which determinedly ignore any of the less favorable facts, such as the conduct of the spiritual advisors. (By the way, by the end of his life, Laurentin would have endorsed the Virgin Mary on toast.) As for Maillard, her entire apostolate is devoted to promoting the apparitions. Apart from that, what are her credentials in any recognized field of study? If, on occasion, I quote church officials, that is because I can locate who said what when -which cannot be said of most of what is claimed by these so-called sources. -And why is it, that among the three pontiffs listed, the only one rapturous about Medjugorje is the one that's no longer around to disclaim any of the comments atrributed to him? Manannan67 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We just need to agree to disagree then. To me when Ratzlinger did not use Zanics investigation data and make a proclamation right then and there but instead started a brand new investigation, says volumes. It doesn't really matter that they came up with the same finding - that is irrelevant. To me this statement of yours shows bias: (By the way, by the end of his life, Laurentin would have endorsed the Virgin Mary on toast.) I will study Laurentin & Maillard in more depth and get back to you. Your statements at the beginning of this about the references were all about selling and making money, were also biased. So far in my easy discovery 4 of the references I posted are not motivated by money. They are either a priest, a nun, or non profit business, or a website that sells nothing. I will complete them all soon. It is ok & encouraged on Wikipedia to have references from different perspectives. Are you wanting to make the whole page about what the Catholic Church believes? I think not. I cannot answer why Saint John Paul II had a deep reverence for Our Lady of Medjugorje and the others didn't - maybe it is attunement.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

-Or maybe it's a crock. I have no idea where you got the notion that "Ratzlinger did not use Zanics investigation data". While Ratzinger suggested the national conference handle things, obviously he did not serve on that commission, so he didn't "use" anyone's data. However, it is nonsense to imagine that the Yugoslav bishops didn't. Any investigative body would review all relevant material, if only to ensure witnesses had not contradicted themselves in prior testimony. If you're reference to "proclamation" is based on Laurentin, he is hardly objective when it comes Zanic. Nor is it irrelevant that the Bishops reached and confirmed the identical result. In studying Laurentin, be sure not to miss his support of Ryden et al. Since when is a priest or nun not interested in money? What supports their "ministry"? Apparitions sell books. When it comes to any section on the "Official position of the Church", yes, I do want to know what the Church believes, and am more likely to find that in the actual verifiable statements of the involved clerics than in third-hand hearsay. Wojtyła had occasion to write over two dozen books. Are any of them about an apparition for which he supposedly had "deep reverence"? Manannan67 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I am finished arguing with you about Bishop Zanic... It is going nowhere. It would be good to say a few things about the past with input from both sides and move on. Then the reader will have the whole picture. This article needs to give some attention to the past and bring the reader up to the present. Let's come together and create a well balanced page. No hard feelings at all.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The article should be based upon verifiable facts rather than rumor or wishful thinking. I have just recently come across a report that JPII gave Mirjana a pair of shoes he wore to Medjugorje -except he never went there. Manannan67 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, although I sympathize, that is not the way Wikipedia works. The old maxim here was "verifiability not truth". The crux of the matter is that article must be based on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:RS. It is not the partisanship or financial interest or whatever that is the main problem. The real problem is that only one of the sources provided by Red Rose 13 even begins to meet that threshold (the O'Connell book) and even that must be used with caution as it is more of a devotional source. There is no point in discussing all these ins and outs until highly reliable secondary sources are provided. Please read WP:V, WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:RS. Start by insisting on reliable, sources, not partisan, self-published websites, and see what you have to discuss then. Slp1 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Here is Oder's reference, four condensed volumes of Positio. In Chapter: A Tribute to the Truth - "The declarations from 114 persons were heard: 35 Cardinals, 20 archbishops & bishops, 11 priests, 5 religioius, 3 nuns, 36 lay Catholics, 3 non-Catholics, and a Jew. Their declarations, along with other documents and writings, filled the thousands of pages of the Copia Pubblica from which were drawn the four condensed volumes of Positio." ..."To gather and evaluate all this material, as well as to listen to the witnesses who took part in this process, has been for me and for my colleagues a truly demanding job..." I would think that gathered direct testimony from the witnesses themselves by the postulator appointed by Cardinal Ruini would be reliable and trusted. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what this has to do with the previous discussion. What information from this book would you like to include in the article? That Pope John Paul was something of supporter/believer in Medjugorje is not in dispute - there are multiple highly reliable independent sources saying so [42][43][44]. Use those. Slp1 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This book is one of the references already in the article for this section [45]. And someone removed this reference from this section today and I returned it. To me it is very reliable and trusted source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I just looked over the ones you found and they are excellent! Thank you! The first one mentions Slawomir Odir as well as Rene Laurentin. And much more. I have been frustrated besides this book Why He is a Saint, I am having a hard time finding books. Thank you also for your guidance with this process and support of finding three good ones. May I start using these references now? Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, you do not find four citations for the same statement excessive. (Oder's co-author on that particular book is Saverio Gaeta.) They may not be as precise as you imagine, since they are the ones cited to support an alleged conversation between Mirjana and JPII -a conversation his personal secretary says never happened, and for good reason. Manannan67 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please re read my post above that explains his references.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

A bit of a mess

a) There are a number of citations to "Čikara 2006" but it is not clear to whom or what this refers;
b) History section seems a bit incoherent; ("Ivanka noticed an unusual 'appearance' floating over the earth" -anybody call "Ghostbusters"??)
c) Could use better sources;(CatholicShop Publishing ?)
d) "...Sister Lúcia,continuously received visions of the Our Lady of Fatima from 1917 on." -Lúcia dos Santos reported visions at Fatima and subsequently eight years later at Pontevedra. Maillard's account of Salinho's account of Lucia's account is at best third hand hearsay that seemingly only came to light after over fifty yrs. (and they can't seem to come up with the nephew's first name.) As is, this entire section adds absolutely nothing to the article.
e) "A couple of the visionaries moved and might still have visions in their location." -speculation; either they do or they don't.
f) "An explanation for these other locations is coming." When the "seers" reveal it? When the editor gets around to it? Why Boston is "blessed" but not Omaha? What does this even mean?
It appears that enthusiasm for the purported apparition is overriding both common sense and decent syntax. Good night, Irene. Manannan67 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. a) Čikara is the source I used but will replace it with a better one. I need a source on the chronology of the alleged apparitions and this guy so far had the best chronological order of the initial "apparitions". However, I found out his article could be considered unreliable, so I decided I'll replace him with other more reliable sources when I find them.

Regarding b), I need your opinion. Should we add the accounts of the seers, or from the third sources? For example, Bishop Žanić writes that one of the seers told him on a tape that they went for smoking, while the seers talk about how they went searching for a sheep (to look more romantic-like - Our Lady of Fatima).

d) is to me a wp:fringe theory. Nobody mentioned this except Maillard. Not only that but she also piled a list of comments supportive of Medjugorje and attributed them to the Pope and Josehp Ratzinger who rebuked them as "frei erfunden" (literally translated as "free imaginations"). Highly unreliable source, whose book was sold with tissues so the readers my cry while reading her book (talking about serious literature).

e) This should be removed as many seers still claim to have daily visions as we speak, ever since 1981! So they do allegedly have visions as we speak.

f) Also, rm this particular sentence. The list of locations is really exhausting. We have visions in the plane, in schools, whenever the alleged seers want them to have (Alabama). --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for helping us out here. Here are my comments and please be sure to read what I wrote on the Third Opinion post.
b) completely agree and seems out of place.

c) Could use better sources;(CatholicShop Publishing ?)

They did publish the book My Heart Will Triumph and I just checked sales on Amazon and it comes out to 139 (see here) [46] books & ebooks a month which equals 1668 a year and that is just on Amazon. It has been in print since 2016.

@Red Rose 13: Re CatholicShop Publishing: "We have a simple mission: to offer a huge selection of the world's finest and most unique Catholic products at affordable prices, and to deliver those products to our customers quickly, cheaply, and with a beaming "virtual smile." -they sell rosary beads. "They did publish the book My Heart Will Triumph" - You appear to have extrapolated sales, which apparently may be anywhere fr 139 to 1668. Projected sales is a poor basis to judge anything, given that the RNC spent about $300K on Trump Jr.'s book. Can you confirm that the book was not produced as part of their author's self-publishing service? That alone would render it dubious. Manannan67 (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I will follow up on thisRed Rose 13 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

d) "...Sister Lúcia,continuously received visions of the Our Lady of Fatima from 1917 on." -Lúcia dos Santos reported visions at Fatima and subsequently eight years later at Pontevedra. Maillard's account of Salinho's account of Lucia's account is at best third hand hearsay that seemingly only came to light after over fifty yrs. (and they can't seem to come up with the nephew's first name.) As is, this entire section adds absolutely nothing to the article.

(1) The specific word should be continued and here is one reference. This author interviewed Sister Lucia.

@Red Rose 13: So what precisely does Walsh say on p.199? Were they talking about Pontevedra? That would be a single subsequent experience not "continued". Does Lúcia dos Santos mention anything of this series of continuous visions anywhere in her writings or only to her nephew? Manannan67 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

1927 She had two visions in which Christ Himself appeared to her. I am in the process of purchasing this book. I will update here when it arrives.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That is apparently the Pontevedra apparitions, which purportedly occurred in Dec. 1925 and Feb. 1926. The first was of Mary and the Christ Child, the Child did not speak; the second was of the Child alone. Both concerned promotion of the already established First Saturdays Devotion. Two brief incidents eight years later on a separate but related matter. While it would be correct to state that she subsequently received a second set of visions, "continued" is a bit of a stretch as it implies that this was an ongoing occurrence. Manannan67 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned before I bought the book by Walsh, where the author interviews Lucia - when it arrives I will share what he discovered.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(2) Actually it came to light and was stated in Maillard's book that was published in 1997. I have noticed that the Fathers, Bishops etc usually only go by their title and last name.

Actually I have noticed that, with the apparent exception of the mysterious nephew, almost all clergymen mentioned in this article are identified by their full name and relative connection to the events. To wit, Father Jozo Zovko, parish priest of St. James Church in Medjugorje, Pavao Žanić, local bishop, Janko Bubalo, Franciscan of the Hercegovinian province, Tomislav Vlašić, Zovko's successor, etc., etc., etc. It would be helpful to know Salinho's first name and what he does so as not to confuse him with any other Fr. Salinho's. Also when exactly did the alleged conversation with his aunt take place? For that matter, when did any conversation between Salinho and Maillard take place? Asking for a friend. Manannan67 (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have researched extensively on this and have come to the determination, that this statement from Father Salinho probably won't be shared by anyone else. It was a private conservation between Lucia and her nephew who reported it. She of course has every right to put that in her book. Wikipedia needs more information. However, Sister Emmanuel's book is a valuable reference for this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(3) the importance to the article is two fold. (1) It shows that another seer still had visions after the initial vision series. (2) To have another seer from a different apparition also see Our Lady of Medjugorje, supports the Medjugorje seers.

e) "A couple of the visionaries moved and might still have visions in their location." -speculation; either they do or they don't.

I think this whole section is unnecessary. There are six alleged seers and this information should be placed under each seer with an explanation. If there are other people having "visions", I am not sure they belong on this page.

f) "An explanation for these other locations is coming." When the "seers" reveal it? When the editor gets around to it? Why Boston is "blessed" but not Omaha? What does this even mean?

Again I think this whole section is unnecessary. There are six alleged seers and this information can be placed under each seer with an explanation.
Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13:, Harry Potter was sold in millions and millions of copies. I still wouldn't use it as a serious reference anywhere. Sister Maillard Emmanuel's books arent used anywhere as a scholarly source [47]. This is not the case for Kutleša's Ogledalo pravde, which is a published book, not a pdf (the Diocese also published a publicly available PDF version). Ogledalo pravde was published by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, while he was still a priest. This book was used as a source for scholarly works ([48]) at Charles University (Prague, Czechia [49]), University of Osijek (Osijek, Croatia [50]), and Bursa Uludağ University (Bursa, Turkey [51]). It was also used as a refrence in at least three other books - Belaj, Bulat and Perić. His book is mentioned by mainstream media in Croatia ([52]) such as Jutarnji list [53] (2nd most read), Slobodna Dalmacija [54] (9th most read), Večernji list [55] (4th most read), Express, published by 24 sata (Croatia) [56] (17th most read); in Bosnia and Herzegovina [57] such as Slobodna Bosna [58] (9th most read). And by the way, facts mentioned in the Kutleša's book do not change with time you know. They cannot be outdated. That's not how things work. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I will discuss this with you when Slp1 joins us. Remember no matter who or what quoted from this pdf/book, it still proves nothing regarding Emmanuel and many other things really. It is like an observer saying some German sent an unknown list of supposed quotes that Emmanuel was sharing somewhere, even referring to Ratzinger who she never mentioned in her book in regards to this. This little pdf is not a direct source to this "information" and the information is so vague and second hand it proves nothing. He said, she said. Also in regards to the little statement that the children were going for a smoke is ridiculous. It also proves nothing. They could have been going for a walk or checking on sheep and smoking at the same time. It is of no importance and this source is blaringly biased. I am only responding to your statement and I will not engage any further discussion on this subject without Slp1 present.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

My little PDF :) ('Allo 'Allo!)

I hope you're aware that the fact that Maillard's list of quotes was rebuked by Ratzinger was quoted by many other sources, such as Nacional, a newspaper in Croatia (which you can see in the article), Church Militant (website) [59]. It's also easily checked via google. It's a widely reported fact. Regarding the smoking seers, yes, my little PDF is the direct source of information, as it used the tapes recorded by Bishop Pavao Žanić. There's nothing to prove you know. I don't have an agenda here. So calm down. Those are just two different accounts given from the same people. That's it. It could be correct that they searched for sheep, but also they went for smoking. Whatever you like. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Church militant I am sure is not a good reference. And I read the whole article on Nacional and there was no reference to Emmanuel at all. Thank you but I am perfectly calm and it is not about what I like or want. I am searching for facts not a personal preference. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"I am perfectly calm" – I hope, but I doubt. [60] --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Manannan67 I know you mean well with the editing but we need to slow down. We are in a discussion with Slp1 and some of the things you are moving around have translation errors in it. And some of the references are being challenged. Also Zanic was relieved of his investigation and expelled from Medjugorje. Let's discuss the changes you would like to make and lets work together.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is one reference I question - Express [the https://express.24sata.hr/top-news/vidjelice-iz-me-ugorja-imaju-milijune-hoteli-vile-auti-22384] It reads like a gossip column with no sources to back up what they are saying. Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In section Mirjana Dragičević Soldo - in the first paragraph, the so called reference page 23 doesn't even refer to Mirjana but to Vicka. and there are no references for the information in this paragraph. In paragraph 3 the reference page 22 does not match what was written, reference 23 is from the gossip article from Express. Reference 24 is something called Jutarnji list and the articles main focus was about the fact that they laid concrete along the edge of beach and in the paragraph on wikipedia it was written she owns this mansion which is actually a villa that consists of two apartments. The rest of the references in that paragraph are from Express the gossip rag. I could go on but I am hoping you have the idea of the problems. One of the translation problems includes the error that GSheng made in his translations to say that her book is called My Heart Will Win when the actual title is My Heart Will Triumph. I am sure this is not what Wikipedia wants on any of their pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but nothing you have above-mentioned has anything at all to do with any edits I have made. They are not mine and I have directed little attention to them. I have not added anything with "translation errors" as I have at this point only reviewed English language sites, and have, in fact, added very little. The Church is not going to take any "official position" until after there has been some investigation. I have moved some paragraphs to better organize some material in that regard. Some of this material is duplicative. Manannan67 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems I did not communicate what I meant clearly. I know that you didn't make the mistaken edits. I not sure of the benefit of moving things around that have errors in them. The errors are not yours. Sorry for the miscommunication. I took the time to research and show the errors in this one section to alert editors that these errors are throughout the page. My intent was to help in our difficult process on this page. I have no intention of having an edit war with anyone. If you think it is best to restructure feel free. I was just hoping that all 4 of us could work together in this process.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the page number in the section about Mirjana Dragičević. Please, explain where p. 22 is used? In which paragraph, what section? Your characterisation of an article as a gossip article, doesn't change anything. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References