Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

little bit too passionate

I'm catholic myself but i think that comentaries like "All Catholics must respect and obey what the Church teaches, rather than follow false apparitions out of pure emotion." or "Medjugorje fanatics" doesn't belong to a equanimous resource like the wikipedia. Should be corrected.

Josesito78 (j_chavez_s@hotmail.com)

I think the entire Criticism section is biased and should be removed. No criticism should be necessary if the main body of the article is objective. --Ronconte 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement, in the Criticism section, that the Vatican has disavowed Medugorje should be removed unless some supporting evidence can be cited. It is my understanding that the Vatican has taken a "wait and see" approach to Medugorje. I do not believe that there is any basis for saying that the Vatican has taken the position that nothing supernational has occurred or that the local Bishop is correct.

OK, I've change the text to say that the Vatican has not decided the matter definitively. --Ronconte 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many opinions

Acortis 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC) this article contains too many opinions that should be removed.

1) Some Medjugorje supporters have claimed that Pope John Paul II expressed a wish to go there himself. This seems, unlikely, however, given the Vatican's own scepticism about the alleged sightings.

The second sentence is an OPINION: remove.

2) There is substantial evidence that the messages and "secrets" supposedly given by the Virgin Mary are actually being written by Fathers Tomislav Vlasik, Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina, the chaplains of Mostar, who were subsequently expelled by Mostar's Bishop Zanic for insubordination.

Provide the "substantial evidence" or remove.

3) Some say that the Church's criteria, which must be followed in order to prove that an apparition is authentic or not, is being disregarded by Međjugorje faithful.

I really wonder who is writing this stuff:

- Who is the "some say ..."? - What is the Church criteria? - Provide evidence for Međjugorje faithful disregarding the Church's criteria

4) Perhaps encouraged by the Franciscan priests who officiated at the local church, the young people began reporting visions every day inside the church, and continue to claim daily visitations as of 2006.

This is an OPINION: remove.

Hey, come on, I said "perhaps." And as a matter of fact, the priests went on record that they did encourage it. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this Article is a BAD example of wikipedia. The italian voice for Medjugorje is much more balanced.

Improvements

Some improvements have been made following my last suggestions. Work still remains to be done.

1) It is not clear WHY "[Pope John Paul II] ... never ruled officially in favor of the apparitions."

The reason is that was simply not in its authority as the "apparitions" are ongoing (to the date I am writing 17-March-2006). Therefore, according to Church's regulations, he could not possibly rule in favor it.

Among the "some Medj. supporters" you might want to mention the declarations of Mons. Maurillo Kreiger,

[1] \begin[quote] Mons. Maurillo Kreiger, former bishop of Florianopolis (Brazil), visited Medjugorje four times. His first visit was in 1986. He writes as follows:"In 1988, I was with eight other bishops and thirty three priests on spiritual retreat in the Vatican. The Holy Father knew that many of us were going to Medjugorje afterwards. After a private mass with the Pope, before leaving Rome, he said, without having been asked anything,"Pray for me in Medjugorje". On another occasion, I told the Pope "I am going to Medjugorje for the fourth time". He concentrated his thoughts and said, "Medjugorje, Medjugorje, it`s the spiritual heart of the world". On the same day I spoke with other Brazilian bishops and the Pope at lunch time and I asked him:"Your holiness, can I tell the visionaries that you send your blessing?" He answered:"Yes yes", and embraced me. \end[quote]

this link contains other non-anonimous unofficial declarations by other trustworthy persons.

2) "Others have suggested that ... " , provide a link for this "anonimous opinion" to make it substantial as a "fact" or remove.

3) "Some critics argue against particular messages, such as those which say positive things about other religions, suggesting that all are equally God's children."

Give names to the "Some critics" and provide a direct link to the "messages" which are questioned. The sentence is also not well structured as it is not clear WHO is "suggesting that all are equally God's children": is the "some critics" or the "messages"?

The alleged messages from the Blessed Mother repeat several times that all religions are paths to God and the Catholic Church is only one of them. This goes against established criteria that any apparition of Mary, angels, Jesus or whoever has to completely agree with the R.C. Church in all particulars before it can be approved by the R.C. Church. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a condemned apparition

This apparition has been condemned. The article is skewed in it's PoV. It is written to argue that this is an open invistigation, such an event is very very very unlikely. In my experience, the CHurch will rarely open an investigation after such an official condemnation. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The user above (who says he knows that the Catholic Church has condemned the apparitions) should not distort facts. He is *not* an expert or an authority and should not make a sweeping statement as if he is one. A certain objectivity would be welcome.(unsigned User:Ngc3532)

FACTS: Medjugorje is NOT condemned by The Catholic Church, that is: The Vatican. In 1998, Archbishop Bertone (secretary to The Congregation for the Doctrince of The Faith, back then led by Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI) explicitly stated that local bishop Ratko Peric only states his own opinion on the matter, but that any Catholic is permitted to go to Medjugorje (see: Nolan, Denis: "The Church And Medjugorje"). In June 2006, American author Michael Kenneth Jones published the book "Medjugorje Investigated" based on documents he had obtained from the US State Department. Beyond any doubt, the book proves that former Mostar bishop Pavao Zanic's first "commission" to investigate Medjugorje was purposely flawed in as much as bishop Zanic had named a majority of known atheists (!) to make up the commission. Three weeks after the publication of Jones' book, The Vatican ordered a new commission (still working) to investigate the Medjugorje apparitions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.16.132 (talk • contribs)

I am repeating the CHurch's official statement, not my own. If the local Ordinary condemns this as not supernatural, then my saying it is condemned because the local ordinary condemned the apparition does not require me to have any authority in the Church. I have worked professionally for a Catholic Aposolate, and indeed, I understand the processes in these matters. This is not a sweeping statement, once it is condemned thats it. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one thing. Unless you have any document that states a new invistigation is undertaken, please do not revert my documented fact that the Apparitions were condemned by the local Bishop. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your statement, "The Catholic Church has condemned the apparitions,..." was misleading and had to be edited, as is your header here, "The is a condemned apparition".

Only the Vatican, acting after a formal investigation by one of the bodies of the Roman Curia, for example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, can make an official ruling on the matter which is binding on the universal Church. Please do not say (as above) that you "understand the processes in these matters" and then say, "once it is condemned thats it." The latter is an unfounded and sweeping statement, which, with respect, suggests that you do not "understand the process" as claimed.

I wonder whether you have been to Medjugorje, because I have, twice. If you haven't, you might to go and see it for yourself.

Neither you nor I are canon lawyers, so I think the lead paragraphs should be more balanced and objective, or a disservice is done to readers, or perhaps even to the divine. Unsigned User:220.255.87.36

Read my above statement. Objective paragraphs do not tell the reader to have an open mind, nor do the speculate that the Bishop has a other than honorable motive for his official condemnation. It also does not speculate that the Vatican has an upcoming investigation, when no investigation is documented. When the Church condemns an apparitions, and the CDF states this is to be respected, only the Pope can reverse the condemnation. No Pope has made any statement that does this. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Having an open mind especially on a matter such as claimed sighting of the Virgin Mary is the crux of objectivity, which you seem to lack, I'm afraid. Hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Catholic lay pilgrims, tens of thousands of priests and religious, and scores of bishops (and probably Cardinals) have been to Medjugorje on personal pilgrimmages. I would hesitate to say that they are all wrong.

Regarding the Bishop, it is not speculation, as you claim without basis. Please read this article, cited already, by a Franciscan:

"The History of the Tragic Conflicts between the Bishops and the Franciscans in Bosnia-Herzegovina" http://www.medjugorje.org/conditions.htm

Please do not try to tailor the article excessively to your views. It is against the spirit of wikipedia and proper standards of journalism. (unsigned User:Ngc3532)

Please sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ and please do not add bars to articles nor ro talk pages. They are not used on pages according to the wikipedia manual of style.

No, I am sorry. Claiming that the bishop has a axe to grind and is falsely claiming the apparitions are not supernatural, without actual proof is not objective. Telling people to have an open mind, when it is clear, in canon law that a local ordinary is vesting with the authority to make this declaration is not objective. Objectively the local Bishop declared this a "not supernatural" event. The CDF could have overturned this if it was unfair and part of bad blood. They sided with the Bishop, and the Bishop's condemnation. The CDF further stated that event promoters such as medjugorje.org who state the Pope secretly think these are supernatural, arespreading a falehood. The are complete "inventions". If the Pope desired this, a single letter would overturn the condemnation, it has not come.

I think the only conclusion to render is that the Vatican tacitly approves the condemnation.

Most of your edits are lifted from the event promoter website, medjugorje.org. It does not matter who attends. It doesn't matter if you have been there. If you have documents to back up your suppositions and opinions they are welcome on wikipedia.

The Vatican need not ratify every condemnation that any local Bishop makes. Stating that the question is open, when the local ordinary has stated this is condemned is a falsehood. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is true. The Pope could overrule the Bishop (although it's most unlikely that a pope would take such a step in the case of a private revelation), or the Bishop could reconsider, re-examine the evidence, and make a new judgment. But if neither of those has happened, then the apparition is, at the very least, discouraged. AnnH ♫ 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, "the Vatican tacitly approves the condemnation"??? Your bias and lack of objectivity is plain for all to see. The Secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Archbishop Bertone, has in an official letter dated 26 May 1998 stated that the statement by the Bishop of Mostar is his "personal conviction", and his "personal opinion". Further, that "it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Hercegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for." see: [2].

You (dominick) are vandalising Wikipedia by inconsiderately editing out other points of view which does not suit your liking. Do not treat it like you own it. Please be more honest.

Scientific Research on the Visionaries

Does this section even belong. It gives conclusions that just don't jive with what I would expect from a scentific or a theological investigation. In particular, number 4, "On the basis of information and observations that can be documented, for all and each of the visionaries it is possible to exclude that these manifestations are of the preternatural order i.e. under demonic influence." How can a scientific and theological commission make this determination? This is a determination for the local Ordinary.

I would suggest we excise this section as it sits, and replace it with a link and a few sentences. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it either since it's all sourced from a website which is linked from the bottom of the article and viewers could look it up for themselves. I tried to clean it up, but I'd be just as happy to see it summarized and dropped. --Bluejay Young 19:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I clipped it. Take a look. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:27, 11 April 2006

(UTC)

Jibe, not jive. JGC1010 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried

Acortis

I tried to fall in love with wikipedia, I tried to believe that this is a democratic encyclopedia, I tried to being factual and not distorted correcting factual information and removing unproved and outlandish claims, I tried to put more factual information ALL of which was substantiated by the appropriate sources and guess what??? "EXPERTS" in the field feel themselves in the right to judge what a commision says, to include unreferenced claims and so on. I have been in Medjugorje, I know what it is. In the end, each of us is left alone with his own conscience, and I do not want to mingle in this mud.

So long, wiki!

The problem is not if you think the apparitions are real or not. This article will be sileent on that issue, because wikipedia has no opinion on that matter. The point is it is easily shown by citation that this apparition were condemned by the local Bishop, and unless the Pope overturns this, that is final. If you have some citation that states this is not the case, you should post a link. I have pointed to the Bishop's documents, private letters, and to the CDF findings. This is not wikipedia's fault, nor are they my documents or opinions. Sorry you think you have to leave wiki for that reason. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Acortis, I'm sorry that you feel this way, due to the actions of some inconsiderate vandals. It's such a pity.

Whole letters or documents

Placing whole letters or documents in an article is not a legitimate citation. Please summarize what they mean to the topic, and provide a link. You may want to look at the wikipedia manual of Style WP:MOS Dominick ^(TALK) 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, the problem is with users such as yourself who make selective and misleading quotations from letters. This makes the entire quotation of the letters necessary, so that readers can read it for themselves, and then read the interpretations and debates. That is the only fair way. These letters are in the public domain and concern matters of universal importance, since they were issued by the Vatican for the guidance of the whole Church. (unsigned User:Ngc3532)

No, please link to them, and summarize them. Please read WP:MOS for guidance. We dont do things like paste whole letters. It doesn't make for a good encyclopedia article. Are you also the anonympous editor? Dominick ^(TALK) 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominick thinks he runs this joint, Ngc3532. Whatever he says goes because he's the king of illogic and bad writing, two things Wikipedia and its admins value highly. Give it up! You'll never outlast the cabal. They are legion. (unsigned User:152.163.100.7

Oh please! This sounds like someone I can identify. Read the WP:MOS. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Links that discredit Medjugorje

You can't remove links critical of this event, and not remove them all. I think the links provide more details on the controversy. If the reader would like to see the circumstances around the condemnation, or a criticism of the people involved in this event, the links are invaluable. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page) Dominick ^(TALK) 18:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

come again dominic who do you think you are, if your going to accuse me of vandalism how about you give some examples, in stead of some subtle accusations. i dont appreciate it, or the way you think you own wikipedia and are free to edit anything that contradicts your preconceived biased opinions. such as in the medjugorje thread

)--Jadran 04:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking liks like that is vandalism. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why insit on having sites that have no factual basis and are myths and propaganda spread by anti-medjugorje supporters(like yourself).

i have read the links, and they make me laugh as to some of the claims they make, there is not one shred of evidence to support some of their claims.

since you are such an expert on medjugorje, i assume you are from there???, and were there to see the so called "A blood feud was soon ignited in Medjugorje and its environs that killed 200 members of the village of 3000 and caused another 600 to flee the region."????

"One of the most brutal aspects of the war in Medjugorje was not the conflict between Croats and Muslims or Serbs but between the Croats themselves. A blood feud was soon ignited in Medjugorje and its environs that killed 200 members of the village of 3000 and caused another 600 to flee the region. Pilgrims at the Medjugorje Peace Center did not even realize the feud was ongoing although grisly atrocities including mutilations and torture were carried out on a regular between the warring clans in nighttime raids. Finally, elements of the Croatian Army aligned with one of the warring clans intervened against the Ostojici, 100 men were rounded up and quickly liquidated in one of the many ravines in the area."

Pure propaganda and lies. i find it amazing to hear this, after family of mine living there, i was prsent during the war It amazes me how people can come up with some outrageous "facts" --Jadran 12:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Links do not have to be NPOV. Sorry, Davies is a pretty well known criticism of these apparaitions. You also removed Vatican statements critical of this event, which is an original document. You may add and edit, but not remove information from wikipedia. I am afraid that your claim that people are not being shot in a war zone conflict with based on reports I have read and articles that Imhave access to and are verifiable. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

well then verify it for all to see. Medjugorje is a small parish, and i know most(all) the familys from there. Go to a person that has lived in medjugorje and they will laugh in your face,at some of the propaganda you a beliveing, although it will be news to their ears, as much of the accusations are bogus eg below. Croats never faught croats in medjugorje, if they did can you 'verify' the names of all 200 croats killed in the village? thankyou kindly (unsignedJadran)

Look, That claim is not in Wikipedia, but it may be a claim in a offsite link, and it is a notable one for those in this field. If it was not such a notable criticism written and widely known, then you may have a case. You also removed other links critical of the event in that area. You may not blank criticism of things like this. Wikipedia should allow the PoV of both sides, one side that thinks this event is fake and condemned, and the other side that think this is real and not condemned. That is how the article should read. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So my guess is you dont have the documents to verify, am i correct?? and btw i wil remove http://www.unitypublishing.com/wanderer.html as there accusation here, are ridiculous.There is no croatian army present in Medjugorje, only the UNPROFOR now under the control of the EU. Aswel as the recently united armys of the Federation of BiH and VRS. and what do the alleged "death camps"( provide evidence not just simple accusations) in other towns of BiH have to do with the question of Medjugorje authenticy.

I do ot see the relavancy of this infomation One of the Gospa messages beofree the war was that there would be a terrible diseaster in yugoslavia if the people do not turn to god. --Jadran 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Profits from Medjurgorje (preying on Catholic beliefs)

Do any of you question how much profit is made from these visions at Medjurgorje?

Let’s examine one of the visionaries, Ivan Dragicevic, using websites where he advertises pilgrimages to Medjurgorje and speaking engagements:

http://www.medjugorje.org

http://www.pilgrimages.com/prayerexperience/

How much money do you think he makes from his visions?

I CALCULATE AT LEAST A HALF MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!!!

You can do some crude math to come up with an estimate. I provide more detail about the logic behind these estimates below.

Profits from Pilgrimages

• Profit per pilgrim: $1000

• Number of Pilgrims per week: 28

• Number of Pilgrimages per year: 15

$1000 X 28 Pilgrims X 15 Weeks = $420,000

Profits from Speaking Engagements at Catholic Churches

• Fees per Speaking Engagement: $10,000

• Number of Speaking Engagements in a Year: 24

$10,000 X 24 Engagements = $240,000

That’s a total of $660,000.

How long has he been doing this? I’m not sure when Ivan Dragicevic, himself started organizing these pilgrimages, but this is the 25th Anniversary of the visions at Medjurgorje.

Estimate Detail

Profits from Pilgrimages

Prayer Experience Pilgrimages With Ivan Dragicevic & Family

http://www.medjugorje.org/ivantrip.htm

http://www.pilgrimages.com/prayerexperience/

Your Prayer Experience Package Includes:

• Quality Air and Ground Transportation
• Air Conditioned Accommodations (double & triple occupancy, Private baths)
• Hot Breakfast & Dinner Daily (served by Ivan & Family)
• English Speaking Tour Guide
• Meetings with Fr. Jozo & other visionaries (when available)

Price: $1599 - $1899 (depending on season) Includes Airfare from New York City to Split Croatia

Let's compare high season costs: $1899 (July 8th – 16th)

• Ticket from NY to Split: $1321 http://Travelocity.com
• Cost of Buying in Bulk: $700 http://airlineconsolidator.com/

Cost of Housing and Feeding a pilgrim for a week: $200

• $70 Food: Breakfast and Dinner (They are cooking for 28 people already).
• $30 Electricity for Air Conditioning and Hot Water
• $100 Ground Transportation (Round Trip Split – Medjurgorje)

Staying with the Dragicevic Family? The Dragicevic family built a hotel to accommodate 28 guests. I hardly call this staying with the Dragicevic family.

$1900 (Cost of Trip) – $700 (Airfare) - $200 (Housing) = $1000

Ivan Dragicevic is clearing (at least) $1000 per person. Multiply that by 28 guests per week: $1000 X 28 = $28,000. How many weeks does he do this for? 15 Weeks (May 12th – September 19th)

$28,000 X 15 Weeks = $420,000

Look at the additional Tipping that is required:

http://www.pilgrimages.com/prayerexperience/knowbeforeyougo/default.html

Examples of Buying Airfare in Bulk

http://www.airlineconsolidator.com/

https://www.aircanada.com/wallet/servlet/CTO5SearchServlet/familyPageDetail http://www.consumertravel.org/airfare.htm?gclid=CLu6w9aiioUCFVBBDgodO29BJA

Profits from Speaking Engagements at Catholic Churches

What does he do the rest of the year? Speaking engagements!

According to his 2006 Speaking schedule, he had 24 speaking engagements from February – May (http://www.medjugorje.org/ivanse.htm).

Ivan used to list contact information for requesting him to speak in your parish. The speaking fee was $10,000. Unfortunately, he doesn’t list this on his website anymore, so I don’t have a citation to independently confirm this.

http://www.medjugorje.org/ivanse.htm

Email him and ask him how much would it cost to bring him to your parish?

Also, did you know that the visions of Medjurgorje financed ethnic cleansing and the croat war machine based in nearby Mostar during the Bosnian war from 1992-1996? That’s another topic entirely.

I understand your sentiment, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like some great independent research. I suggest creating a webpage to display it all. It is definitely useful information. Do you have any sources (other than yourself) who make these kinds of accusations/observations? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)I mistakenly edit section below with my commentary on staying with Ivan On pilgrimage.

216.105.151.206 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to put this information. This is not a forum or a personal website. These accusations do not contribute to the quality of the article and are based on shaky information/may not be true. No hate-mongering! :) NewCanada (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If no one objects, I'm removing this entire section as a violation of Talk page guidelines. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific research uncited sentence

I removed the following uncited sentence from the Scientific Research section. If you can find a valid citation, feel free to put it back. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

These researches speculated that the apparitions reported by the visionaries may be a phenomenon that surpasses modern science. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

I stayed with Ivan the visionairy in august,2006 as part of his plgrimmage experience. I agree with what is written in this passage concerning the expenses but do not know or care about Ivan's profit or what Ivan does with his money. What I do know is that Ivan does have visions of The Blessed Virgin Mary, many incredible supernatural occurrences happenned while I was there along with many conversions. If you doubt,go there and you will believe. I can assure you the "hotel" you mention is an addition to Ivans home which resembles dorm rooms with a small shower and air conditioner. Our room was directly above Ivan's prayer room that is in his part of the house, which we were free to use. Ivan also was present at almost every meal, helping to prepare, serve and clean up after us pilgrims. He seemed from my perspective to live a very simple, prayer filled life-not extravagantly. I do not believe Ivan is financially motivated, but if he does make a lot of money he just may be spending it in very worthwhile and charitable causes.216.105.151.206 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)–

Ratzinger?!

"Mons. Maurillo Kreiger, former bishop of Florianopolis (Brazil), has repeatedly claimed that Pope John Paul II made statements in favor of Medjugorje. This story has been declared a fabrication. In 1998, when various statements were cited which were supposedly were made by John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) responded in writing on 22 July: "The only thing I can say regarding statements on Medjugorje ascribed to the Holy Father and myself is that they are complete invention"."

That sounds very important... why aren't any sources cited?

• Bp. Peric's 2004 report cites the book Ogledalo Pravde (Mirror of Justice). Chonak 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate visionary biographies

There are now two articles in place:

• Vicka Ivanković
• Marija Pavlović

If anyone would like to expand on them, please do so. This also means that there are still four to be done:

• Mirjana Dragićević
• Ivan Dragićević
• Ivan Ivanković
• Ivanka Ivanković

---

what happened to jakov colo?

and who is ivan ivankovic?

here is some infomation on the visionaries courtesy of the tourist association of the municipality of citluk.

http://www.tzcitluk.com/en/medjugorje3.html MEĐUGORJE THE VISIONARIES Ivanka Ivanković – Elez was born in 1966. She had daily apparitions until May 7, 1985, when, by entrusting to her the tenth Secret, Our Lady told her that she was going to have apparitions for all her life once a year on the day the anniversary the anniversary of the apparitions.

Mirjana Dragičević - Soldo was born in 1965. She daily apparitions until December 25, 1982. By entrusting the tenth secret to her, Our Lady told her that she was going to have apparitions once a year – on March 18. Since August 2, 1987, each second day the month she hears the voice Our Lady, sometimes sees Her, and prays with Her for the un believers

Vicka Ivanković – Mijatović was born in 1964. She has daily apparitions.

Marija Pavlović – Lunetti was born in 1965. She has daily apparitions.

Ivan Dragičević was born in 1965. He has daily apparitions.

Jakov Čolo was born in 1971. He had daily apparitions until September 12, 1998. By entrusting the tenth secret to him, Our Lady told him that he was going to have apparitions once a year – on Christmas, December 25.

Proposed merging of Litmus Test of Medjugorje

I don't think the Litmus Test article needs to be in a separate article from Medugorje. It also needs a lot of clean-up, which is more likely to happen if it is in the Medugorje article.) Ward3001 02:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont't agree. Medjugorje is the name for most part of searches about their apparitions. We should mantain the "Medjugorje" artice separated.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you talking about the difference in spelling (Međugorje vs. Medjugorje)? If so, that can easily be fixed with a redirect (enter one spelling to search and you're automatically redirected to the other one). If that's not what you're referring to, could you please explain further? Thanks. Ward3001 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the information of Medjugorje. Most part of people just know Medjugorje as local of marian apparitions. So, you should mantain the article.

Sorry, I'm still not understanding. I'm not talking about deleting any information. I simply want to move the information in the Litmus Test article to the main Medugorje article. Ward3001 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

START MartinGugino 09:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No I do not believe that the two articles should be merged. The NPOV principle is involved, but I cant say exactly how. It may be similar to the Kennedy assasination story. There are many POVs about the JFK story, and each can be reported without saying all the time: "others feel this is completely wrong". The "other" article, about the local ordinary's objections SHOULD be linked to from this Medjurgorje article, possibly with a summarizing paragraph. It think it would give both sides more breathing room.

The other title could be clearer, such as: "Medjugorje, the Catholic Church's position" or "Medjugorje, problems"

END MartinGugino 09:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Litmus Test of Medjugorje is a POV fork which should be deleted, and only some of its content can be merged into this article. We could say the bishop claimed this event was a litmus test of obedience, including an abbreviated quotation. Djcastel 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

START LaudemGloriaeI'm in agreement with Mr. Gugino here. Also a couple articles from Jimmy Akin's blog on the matter: Medjugorje New Commission on Medjugorje announced

Mr. Gugino is basically admitting that the Litmus Test of Medjugorje article represents a single point of view. We don't achieve NPOV by having one article show one POV and another article advocating the other POV. All significant POVs should be represented in each article.

If nothing else, the article should be renamed and changed in scope to "Medjugorje, the Catholic Church's position," including statements before 2006. The whole notion of a "Litmus Test" is opinionated, since it assumes that obedience or disobedience to the bishop's 2006 statement has some sort of probative implications for the apparitions. Djcastel 13:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's structure this discussion a bit: The proposal to to merge Litmus Test of Medjugorje with this article Međugorje

• Support. The 'Litmus Test' article covers the same subject matter as this article. The material in the LT article which presents a POV will be edited to cite the advocates of that particular POV. The overlap is significant, see WP:MERGE for the details. Another reason for a merge is that the LT article really doesn't stand alone. It needs the context of this article to make any sense. Finally, a reluctance to edit the LT article to have it conform to the standards of the Wikipedia is not a valid argument to oppose a merge. This seems to me to be an obvious case of where a merge is indicated by the editing guidelines. patsw 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support cleanup and merge. The Litmus Test article has extended quotations that should be severely truncated, and the "What Happened Afterward" section is currently incoherent. Care should be taken so that Bishop Peric's comments are placed in the context of other ecclesiastical statements dating back to the 1980s, to avoid giving undue weight to a single point of view. Djcastel 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Random article lead me here, and it doesn't really seem like it should be its own article. Titanium Dragon 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Litmus Test: the bishop vs everyone else?

What is the "Litmus Test"? What is the significance of the test? What is the origin of the term? (It seems to me the test is: believe me or be considered unwise.) I feel the term should not be used until justified.

The opinion of the local bishop has been an essential part of the Medjugorje saga. The opinion has been a negative one, of both the apparitions and of the Franciscans.

Prohibiting Catholics from coming to, or talking about, Medjugorje is equivalent to saying that it is unworthy of belief - something that has not been determined. Martin | talk • contribs 15:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack

I understand the argument that the article is a coatrack, but here's the problem. For much of the Catholic (and non-Catholic) world, the term "Međugorje" has become synonymous with the reported apparitions. I am seeking opinions about how to handle this, because matters related to the reported apparitions are notable enough for an article. A new article could be created, perhaps with a title of "Međugorje apparitions", with a wikilink to it from the Međugorje article, leaving very little in the Međugorje article. Opinions are welcome. Ward3001 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps moving (or renaming) the bulk of this article to an appropriately-named article such as "Međugorje apparitions" or something like this would be a good idea. And there is ineherently nothing wrong with having only a short stub on a population place or a geographical location; all population places are ineherently notable. Hopefully someone will come along and write something about the place itself.

I just want to say that current the situation appears quite skewed: the article is supposedly about a geographical location, and the lead states that; but then it dives directly into the controversy surrounding the apparitions, and approximately 80% or 90% of the article (including links etc.) is about that.

Perhaps simply renaming the entire article to an appropriate name, and editing the lead, will solve the problem?

131.111.8.104 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Most other articles about Marian apparitions are titled "Our Lady of ...", and Our Lady of Međugorje is commonly used. Therefore I propose renaming the article Our Lady of Međugorje. Then a stub about the village would have the old title of Međugorje, with a link to the article about the apparitions. I'll wait for additional comments. Ward3001 01:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That seems a much more sensible and consistent. Go for it. Grhabyt (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it proper to title an article "Our Lady of Whatever" before a set of apparitions has been officially granted that title by The Catholic Church? This is a real question, I'm not trying to be snarky. Would a better title be "Medjugorje apparitions" or "Medjugorje controversy"? --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To address coatrack issues I have created the article Our Lady of Međugorje and removed references to Our Lady of Međugorje from this article. --WikiCats (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mud-throwing and man in black

I've removed this section:
"In 1991 armed conflict broke out between the Ostojici clan that lived near the site of the apparition and the Jerkovici and Sivrici clans that lived in the valley. As the larger conflicts in Herzegovina intensified, the Ostojici were driven from the area".<ref>Bax, Mart. Planned Policy or Primitive Balkanism? A Local Contribution to the Ethnography of the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Ethnos 2000. 65(3):317-340.</ref>.
I've never heard of such event. You cannot hide such things for 17 years, especially in wartimes, when such information passes like neutrinos through everything.
Otherwise, what's next? Shall we put every opscure source into Wikipedia? What's next?
"Men in black landed and captured witnesses of apparitions, that appeared to be aliens from another planet. Those witnesses have broke interplanetar agreement of non-interference. Participants shot with lasers and phasors at each other."?
Such opscure authors and conspiracy theorists appear from time to time. Some of those authors are opsessed anti-Catholics. Wikipedia is not a test ground nor a lab rat. Kubura (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

POV check

I've added the {{POV check}} tag, because large portions of the article sound very much like it was written at least by Roman Catholic believers, if not by believers in the apparitions. Especially the lead and the first few sections may be difficult for non-Christians to even understand, as it seems to take for granted that the reader knows who the BVM is. —Angr 09:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

In addition to lengthy quotations that need evaluation under our non-free content criteria, this article contains text copied directly from external sources. As one single example, though there are many others, compare the source here with this sentence from our article: "The next day at the same time, June 25, 1981, four of them, Ivanka Ivankovic, Mirjana Dragicevic, Vicka Ivankovic and Ivan Dragicevic, felt strongly drawn towards the place where, the day before, they saw the One who they had recognised as Our Lady." They are identical. We cannot use material in this fashion from external sites unless there is clear indication that the text is public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL. The material should be rewritten. There is a link currently on the front page to a temporary page that can be used for this purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent opportunity to re-write the article from scratch without all the non-NPOV. I've begun at Talk:Our Lady of Međugorje/Temp, to which others are invited to contribute, keeping direct quotes to a bare minimum and keeping biased language out of the article altogether. —Angr 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this copyright concern. Your temporary article has been moved to article space. Deleted revisions are stored at Our Lady of Međugorje/deleted revisions 2008-11-18, where they can be accessed in the future if necessary but will not present a problem in case of future need for selective deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5