Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Excellent, adequate and deprecated sources (Redux)

Red Rose kindly made a similar section above, but for various reasons I have decided to try to start again. One of those reasons is that I am not the ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not a reliable source- it is all of our jobs to search for and use the best, highest quality sources. Another reason is that having looked again at some of these sources, I have come to the conclusion that we are often dealing with primary sources: sources that are written by people very, very close to the event, and so that is sometimes the main issue rather than the publisher.

Good to Excellent sources

Books, Journal article

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

News sources

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

Useable in some situations, with caution

Tertiary sources-Use some caution

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

Primary sources- Use lots and lots of caution

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

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

Very old, ?Outdated

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

Not reliable

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

Regarding Klimek, I think his book should be used with caution. Peter Jan Margry who is an authority with good standing on this subject, reviewed his book, and although he commanded it for its philosophical aspects, he nevertheless was critical of its bias, referring to it as "apologetic". Margry writes: "Klimek’s colleagues from Boston College, Franciscan College of Steubenville, and Catholic University of America all praise the book in glowing terms on the Oxford University Press website. This raises the question of why the press decided to publish an apologetic rather than traditionally scholarly work. But a further complication is that the Franciscans themselves are managing the Medjugorje shrine, and have been battling the Vatican for decades to get their heavily contested shrine acknowledged as a site of a supernatural character. And the author? A third order Franciscan friar." [1]

Further, it can be seen from Klimek's website, that indeed he is a biased author, where he promotes "Our Lady's messages" from Medjugorje and is actively involved in promoting Medjugorje apparitions. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll write here about Perić being used as a source and why I think he can be used as a reference even in some of the cases when he might be considered self-published or a primary source.

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

— [2]

Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [3], [4] [5], [6], [7], [8]. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [9] [10] [11]. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska Smotra, University of Zagreb; Hercegovina, University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author. That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. [12]

We can see from the above paragraphs that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source. In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources.

All of the above applies to Nikola Bulat, a professor at the University of Split, since he is also mentioned as a disputed source (Proof: [13], [14], [15], [16]) and Dražen Kutleša, who was a professor at the Theological Institute of Mostar, University of Sarajevo. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Responding
Regarding Peric and Ogledalo Pravde - here are a couple of further points.
(1) Ogledalo Pravde was published by the Mostar Diocese itself which is not reliable nor independent source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
(2) It is filled with interviews and statements including personal opinions and gossip [WP:PSTS] and these are not independent from the apparitions.
(3) The publication that you posted with links, non of them are Ogledalo or the other ones I listed.

(4) Ogledalo Prave is a compilation of statements and interviews of people directly involved. Peric even makes comments. The few references it uses include other primary sources like Zanic the previous bishop and Bulat, involved in the Commission on Medjugorje, Vlasic previous father in Medjugorje, Laurentin, pro Medjugorje
(5) It is a fact that not every book an author writes is going to be a reputable nor reliable source. We have to look at each publication that is trying to be used on Wikipedia. The specific one on this page is Ogledalo Pravde.
(6) WP:RSPRIMARY "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
(7) The full quote: WP:SPS
*"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
*Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.
*Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
(8) I am sure that using one of these sources to create a controversial post is not allowed. (9) WP: Red FlagExceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

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

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

1. This is wrong. The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example: [17], [18], [19], [20]). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica [21], Božidar Petrač [22], Marijan Sivrić [23], Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: Vjeko Božo Jarak [24], Marina Beus [25], Božo Goluža [26], Ivica Šarac [27] etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive [28], the University of Osijek [29]), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher.
2. This is wrong. Simply wrong. You cannot speak Croatian, so I suppose you never read the book. Otherwise, you'd know this statement is false.
3. They don't have to be about Ogledalo pravde. It's about the authors. Please read what I wrote, again and again.
4. Again, this is wrong. See (2).
5. Irrelevant.
6. The whole point of me writing the paragraph above your comment is why we can use Perić and others as reliable even if and when they could be considered primary sources.
7. The same point as in (6); Our Lady of Medjugorje isn't a person; though some people might object :) Nonetheless, the rule on living people doesn't apply here... obviously.
8. None of the claims by any of the authors mentioned in my paragraph above are exceptional. They're easily checked via a simple google search and are confirmed by other authors. I'd like you to give me an example of an exceptional claim made by Perić, Kutleša, or Bulat. On the other hand, some of the authors claimed hearing God and seeing Satan (Sullivan; speaking of exceptional claims). --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Klimek's Medjugorje and the Supernatural

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

Peter Jan Margry who is an authority with good standing on this subject, reviewed his book, and although he commanded it for its philosophical aspects, he nevertheless was critical of its bias, referring to it as "apologetic". Margry writes: "Klimek’s colleagues from Boston College, Franciscan College of Steubenville, and Catholic University of America all praise the book in glowing terms on the Oxford University Press website. This raises the question of why the press decided to publish an apologetic rather than traditionally scholarly work. But a further complication is that the Franciscans themselves are managing the Medjugorje shrine, and have been battling the Vatican for decades to get their heavily contested shrine acknowledged as a site of a supernatural character. And the author? A third order Franciscan friar." [30]

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

Further, it can be seen from Klimek's website, that indeed he is a biased author, where he promotes "Our Lady's messages" from Medjugorje and is actively involved in promoting Medjugorje apparitions. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Book Discussions as of 4/26/21

Red Rose 13 research and discovery on these sources

Excellent definition of Primary Sources [[31]]

Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Daniel Klimek

• Kimek is independent from the Medjugorje apparitions - a secondary source.
• Book is published by Oxford University Press - noted for editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate. WP:BIASED

Here is a review although I don't think it is necessary - the Journal of Scientific Exploration [[32]]

The Miracle Detective by Randall Sullivan

• Sullivan is independent from the Medjugorje apparitions - a secondary source
• Book is published by Grove Press, New York [[33]] editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Review: Publisher Weekly - [[34]]

Peer review:
(1) https://www.dubiousdisciple.com/author
https://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2010/12/book-review-the-miracle-detective.html
(2) https://www.kirkusreviews.com/about/team/ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/randall-sullivan/the-miracle-detective/
(3) Written by Bart McDowell, an award-winning writer and senior editor at National Geographic magazine in Washington for 32 years [[35]][[36]]

Istina će nas osloboditi translated The Truth will set us free

• Nikola Bulat was directly involved in the Our Lady of Medjugorje Apparitions as a member of the Episcopal Commission for the Investigation of Events in Medjugorje, 1984-1986. He is not independent.
• Book was published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated as Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar The Bishop at the time was Ratko Perić. Bishop Peric wrote the preface to this book. Church publisher not a good reputation for objective fact-checking

Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice

• Dražen Kutleša prepared the book for Bishop Peric, not Independent
• Book was published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated as Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar. The Bishop at the time was Ratko Perić. Bishop Peric wrote the preface and conclusion to this book. Church publisher not a good reputation for objective fact-checking

Bishop Ratko Peric's books or letters

• whether he is independent or not depends on the book that he wrote in relation to the page. If he writes about Medjugorje, he is not independent.
• letters are not published books
• Whether the publisher has a good reputation for objective fact-checking depends who is publishing the document in question but if it is about Medjugorje he is not and never will be independent.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There is confusion about why a book is considered reliable and whether the author is independent of the subject matter. According to Wikipedia (1) a book is considered reliable

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

Peter Jan Margry who is an authority with good standing on this subject, reviewed his book, and although he commanded it for its philosophical aspects, he nevertheless was critical of its bias, referring to it as "apologetic". Margry writes: "Klimek’s colleagues from Boston College, Franciscan College of Steubenville, and Catholic University of America all praise the book in glowing terms on the Oxford University Press website. This raises the question of why the press decided to publish an apologetic rather than traditionally scholarly work. But a further complication is that the Franciscans themselves are managing the Medjugorje shrine, and have been battling the Vatican for decades to get their heavily contested shrine acknowledged as a site of a supernatural character. And the author? A third order Franciscan friar." [37]

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

Even the link of a peer review you provided, talks about Klimek's bias: "Klimek is arguing that these visions are not the result of cultural associations, hallucinations, imaginations, etc., but are divinely inspired and part of what he calls the perennial tradition."

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

Sullivan cannot be considered an independent, reliable source. He is biased. I think we cannot use him as a reference any longer. The information he provides is incorrect since Bishop Čule was proclaimed innocent and he was never a Nazi collaborator. He never praised Tito in any way. Doing my research on him and reading tons of books on the subject, I cannot find anything similar. Sullivan is a Medjugorje sympathizer who claims to have been converted there. Thus he isn't neutral. By claiming to be converted there and actively supporting the cause (like for example on the Oprah show), this makes him directly involved and unreliable. His book is never mentioned by anyone as useful material on the subject; it's a personal narrative about his conversion there.

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

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

— [38]

The reivew you provided for Sullivan's book is not a peer review.

The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example: [39], [40], [41], [42]). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica [43], Božidar Petrač [44], Marijan Sivrić [45], Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: Vjeko Božo Jarak [46], Marina Beus [47], Božo Goluža [48], Ivica Šarac [49] etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive [50], the University of Osijek [51]), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher.

Bulat's book is not a primary source nor self-published, which is evident from the link about the definition of primary sources you provided. Same goes for Kutleša. That said, even if they would be primary sources, they can be still used in this article because:

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

— [52]

Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [53], [54] [55], [56], [57], [58]. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [59] [60] [61]. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska Smotra, University of Zagreb; Hercegovina, University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author. That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. [62]

We can see from the above paragraphs that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source. In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources.

All of the above applies to Nikola Bulat, a professor at the University of Split, since he is also mentioned as a disputed source (Proof: [63], [64], [65], [66]) and Dražen Kutleša, who was a professor at the Theological Institute of Mostar, University of Sarajevo. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

comment - @Red Rose 13 and Governor Sheng: This discussion is practically unmanageable pile of paragraphs. What are you discussing here? Can you focus on separate topics by placing them under separate subsections? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Alexander Davronov - I agree that the discussion has been unmanageable. Thank you for trying to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13, User:Governor Sheng - Another editor thinks that your extended discussion makes it nearly impossible for another editor to advise you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenonIf you look at the edit History I responded right away to Dvaronov and restructured my comments on May 9, 2021 "Thank you does this help Alexander Davronov"Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

I have removed the Third Opinion request. There have already been multiple third opinions, and third opinion is meant to be a lightweight process, not a way of getting an editor to rewrite multiple articles. Try WikiProject Catholicism, or WikiProject Croatia for an editor who can read South Slavic in the Latin script, or some other project. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in a better direction. But one thing we need to make clear. I get the impression and could be wrong but you seem to think I am looking for someone else to rewrite the OLM page and the related pages, is that true? But really I am looking for a neutral expert editor who can oversee us as we edit and correct us as needed. Slp1 was very good at that and so was another editor I worked with years ago. These editors exist. So I will check out WikiProject. We are finished with the Conflict Resolution for now right?Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - Why do you need a neutral expert editor to oversee you? Why can't you rewrite the article with all deliberate speed? Why do you need an expert editor to oversee you? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) Because of the conflict with User:Governor Sheng. Just look at the editing history on Hnilica. (2) User:Slp1helped us gather references and put them in categories sharing her rationale. You can see the list on the talk page now in Archive 5. I have been using this list for top quality references and to avoid primary sources on these contentious pages. She suggested not using the primary source by Peric edited by Kutlesa and others which are on the primary sources list (there are six living seers and at least one living Franciscan monk on this page) and it is too easy to misuse them for pushing a point of view. Also Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric held the same opinion that the visions of OLM are false which of course is a bias. She put Sullivan & Klimeks book in the good to excellent list. Wikipedia clearly states that if an author has a bias to place inline attributions in the statement. This page needs someone that has a deep knowledge about sources and Wikipedia guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Governor Sheng Remember when we requested to work on the OLM page in a sandbox situation? We could then discuss the page and explore sources and statements until finished? Every source and statements we bring to the page needs to vetted by both of us using Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps you, User:Robert McClenon could create a duplicate that we can do this with? Once this is done we could then move to each of the OLM related pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Governor Sheng Since I have not received a response on your talk page or here, I am going to begin editing here as suggested by User:Robert McClenon. If you have a question about my editing please bring it here. Any new sources I bring here I plan to present my analysis of the source. Please do the same and that would include the sources you added beyond our list with Slp1. This way we can work on harmony and respect. I plan to use the sources already used on the page if they are balanced.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion as of May 29, 2021

User:Governor Sheng I noticed that you recently added sources written in the Croatian language. This makes it impossible for other editors to verify the posts. I will need to have sections of a book translated to English. Please provide that. Right now these are the books used in the Religious section even when Slp1 had asked you to use English books for verification:

• Hercegovački franjevci – sedam stoljeća s narodom [Herzegovinian Franciscans – seven centuries with the people] (in Croatian)
• Život i rad mostarsko-duvanjskih i trebinjsko-mrkanskih biskupa u zadnjih 100 godina" [The life and work of the bishops of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan in the last 100 years]

Please translate the sections these statements came from.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of Non-English Sources

User:Red Rose 13 - Please see the policy on non-English sources, which states that non-English sources are permitted. Your systematic objection in advance to the use of non-English sources is one of the reasons why work on these articles is taking so long, and your complaints about the length of time are largely about a self-inflicted problem.

I am aware that the policy states: "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". Your pre-emptive demand for the translation of non-English sources is consistent with the letter of the policy but not with the spirit of the policy.

The average reader is not interested in verifying all of the material in an article, and it should not be necessary to demand that translations be supplied in advance. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon Then let me be more clear. This is not a pre-emptive demand. These sources I listed are on the page right now. I am asking for translations from Croatian sources that are supporting contentious statements. I have discovered over time that I need to look at every single source that User:Governor Sheng provides in order to find the full, overall view of what the author is saying. When I say I am using the sources on the page, this is what I mean. I go to the source and read the context and then bring back information that is lacking for a well rounded view. Also the translation is for editors who want to know the full context including me. The average reader will probably never look at the references at all.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll translate relevant portions of the books. I'm on a trip right now. Also, as Robert McClenon said, in future, please make such demands only when the statements are challenged. If you could, please explain to me what seems off in the statements sourced by these two books. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you here is my list. I need many paragraphs before and after these statements:

• His successor, also a Franciscan, Alojzije Mišić, cared little about raising secular clergy and was used by the Franciscans to try to change Rome's decision on distribution of parishes.
  

• His appointment saw fierce resistance from the Franciscans who hoped to secure the post for one of their own, and they were supported by the fascist government of the Independent State of Croatia.
  

The last two have English-language sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. I removed the last two. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for the two translations of the above statements and the sentences before and after.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing Discussion

User:Governor Sheng Because the Religious section was a rough draft created for Slp1 to edit, we need to delete the whole section and then bring any additions that we want to make to the talk page for discussion. I would be ok with deleting or you could. Here is the paragraph that I wrote as an introduction to the Religious section that you deleted.
The religious situation during the time of the first visions of Our Lady of Medjurgorje was complex. The Catholic Church had previously made a decision to expand the diocesan jurisdiction to Herzegovina, where the village of Medjugorje is. The Franciscans of Herzegovina would be forced to lead a monastic life rather than pastoral. They saw this as a threat to their survival, depriving them of a source of income and to their role as community social leaders which they attained over centuries of “difficult missionary” work while under Turkish domination. In 1340 the Bosnia Franciscans were sent from “Rome as inquisitors to root out heresy of the Bosnian Church which had spread to the entire region.” Their resistance to this change put them into conflict with the Church's hierarchy, including their Franciscan Order in Rome. In their struggle against the Church's decision, the Franciscans went against the Church's authority and canon law. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Governor Sheng I am almost finished with a rewrite for the religious section and will place it here for you to see. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose such changes. They're excessively based on your own interpretation not supported by the mentioned sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't even presented the full rewrite. We can either negotiate or remove the whole section and start over paragraph by paragraph. From the one paragraph I provided, the information is completely supported by the sources.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You continue to distort the sources and add your own interpretation of events as usual. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below in response to your accusations. I also do not trust your edits and I experience you cherry picking and distortion information from the sources. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

When people collaborate, one presents changes and then the other either accepts it or proposes another version. Are you planning on doing that? I am inviting you to work with me, negotiate and compromise by following the Wikipedia guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Religious Section Discussion

The intent of this section is to discuss to briefly describe the religious situation in Medjugorje just before the apparitions occurred. To help with our discussion and collaboration I am going to place direct quotes of information from English sources because you don't trust me. Not ever word needs to be added but it gives an overall view of the subject. And with direct quotes you can no longer question my edits.

After this I am going to suggest what needs to be removed from the section and why.

• Nationalism and Terror Page 9, “In 1340 the Bosnia Franciscans were sent from “Rome as inquisitors to root out heresy of the Bosnian Church which had spread to the entire region.”
  

The “Franciscans established a Bosnia mission which extended from the Adriatic to the Black Sea and ‘comprised over sixty monasteries and 700 missionary friars’ by the mide-1400s.”
“Under Ottoman rule, the Roman Church lost a large part of its substantial properties…” “Many men of the cloth retreated to Dalmatia and Hungary, until finally only Franciscans remained in the field.” …”the population was divided into three communities based on Religious affiliation; there were Muslims, Orthodox Christians, and Catholics. Franciscans friars became the leaders of this last class.” Etc….

• Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion Page 143, Herzegovina –“ the Franciscans have in recent years entered a phase of acute conflict with the larger hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church (including their own superiors in Rome). The firm decision of the church authorities to extend diocesan jurisdiction to Herzegovina (thus relegating the friars to conventual life) is seen by the Franciscans as a grave threat. It would deprive them both of a source of income which many of the consider as essential to their survival and of their status as social leaders, a status so laboriously attained after centuries of difficult missionary activity under Turkish domination. Their resistance to comply runs against church authority and Canon Law. Again, in their struggle only direct divine intervention on their side could pose a sufficiently weighty challenge to their opponents.”

Page 144, “During the four hundred years of Turkish domination, the Franciscan friars remained the only church presence among the subjugated Christians of Bosnia-Herzegovina. While the Franciscans reached some agreements with the relatively tolerant Muslim rulers, many of the brothers suffered persecution and martyrdom at the hands of Ottoman authorities. The friars were also charged by Rome with counteracting the Bogumil heresy that became prominent in Bosnia before Turkish occupation. They fulfilled their double mission and in the process became deeply identified with the nationalistic aspirations of the Bosnian Croats they ministered” “The members of their flock, for their part, reciprocated by acknowledging them as their spiritual and social leaders.”
“All aspects of this secular symbiosis have manifested themselves in the present conflict, with local parishioners building walls around the parish church to prevent the diocesan clergy from taking possession in” some of the towns.
“On occasions, the parishioners have attacked the newly assigned diocesan priests and refused en masse to accept their ministry or receive the sacraments from them.”
“In 1980, the Vatican (who had named the first non-Franciscan Bishop of Mostar only this century) decided to divide the parish of Mostar into two parishes by creating a new cathedral parish under the direct authority of the bishop. The cathedral parish was to be ministered only by diocesan clergy. This attempt to gain ground for the secular priests further antagonized the Franciscans, thus giving rise to new tensions. These tensions climaxed when, soon after Pavao Zanic became new bishop.”

• The Miracle Detective
  

Page 67 During the aftermath of World War II “In Medjugorje the church that had stood for fifty years was demolished in a few days, its rubble used to create a temporary crossing over the Lukos River” to replace the bridge that was blown up.
Page 69
In Medjugorje, the Franciscans were allowed to erect a new Catholic church (on sturdier ground) which opened in 1972.” “…the church in Medjugorje was by far the largest on the Brotnjo plateau, with seating for five times the congregation it drew for Sunday Mass.”

Page 70 In August 1980, when Pavao Zanic became the new bishop of Mostar, he immediately announced that the city’s parish would be divided into two parts: Three quarters of Mostar’s territory would become a new cathedral parish, while one quarter of the city would remains under the supervision of Franciscans. The uproar that ensued was described by the new bishop as “a revolt.”

• Our lady of the Nations Page 153, “The election of John Paul II in 1978, the first non-Italian pope for several centuries and a cardinal archbishop from Poland, intensified the struggle between the Vatican and Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe.
  

• The Encylcopedia of Religious Phenomena - page 221-222, “Medjugorje is a village in present-day Bosnia-Herzegovina, an area that has experienced significant religious and political conflict throughout the twentieth century. In a largely Muslim region, the village was a haven for Roman Catholics. Through the centuries, the faithful had been primarily under the guidance of priests of the Franciscan order, but in 1878 Pope Leo XIII ordered secular clergy into the area."

Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Response

• Nationalism and Terror : I don't see the claim "In 1340 the Bosnia Franciscans were sent from “Rome as inquisitors to root out heresy of the Bosnian Church which had spread to the entire region" as being supported by the quotes you mentioned. Again, you included some of the information not supported by the sources. Although it is generally correct that the Franciscans were sent to "dismantle" the Bosnian Church, its characterisation as heretical has been dismissed by the contemporary historians.

Not sure why you are unable to see it. This are ALL direct quotes. Anybody who goes to that page can see it. Are you blocked from seeing that page?

What page? --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The page is listed in my post.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

None of the pages you mentioned support the above paragraph. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it's the page 9. I see the content. Still, don't see the connection with remaining quotes. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Again - Not sure why you are unable to see something that is there.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion. Again, contemporary historians have excluded the Bogomilist theory. The idea about "martyrdom of Franciscans" is somewhat correct, but not totally. They benefited greatly from the Ottoman occupation, establishing themselves as the only religious caretakers with the help of the Ottomans. This fact is completely disregarded by this source (or at least the part you quoted). In the end, a great part of your insert to the article is not supported by the mentioned source. The Franciscans gaining the status of social leaders through their missionary work, income, etc, isn't supported explicitly by the source but is rather your own interpretation (or you've missed the qoutes out).

I am inserting directly quoted information from these sources to show the whole truth. I am not saying that we add everything but portion of it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Miracle Detective: Not a scholarly source, biased, unreliable.

I have been assuming you know all the guidelines on wikipedia but apparently not.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered [[67]]

This guideline section will answer you question. [[68]] All sources do not need to be a scholarly source nor unbiased. Reliability relates to who is publishing the source which in this case is Grove Press, New York, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Sullivan is independent from the source. All that is required is an inline citation. forgot to sign Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, this source isn't reliable. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read the guidelines. It is reliable according to the Wikipedia guidelines that I took the time to give you the link. Let me know after you have read the guidelines, we then can discuss it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've read the guidlines. Unreliable sources cannot be used in any situation, especially not when they give an account for contested claims. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the guidelines that are linked above. Apparently you missed this. "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." This book meets all of these requirements.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." It doesn't. Grove Press isn't know for publishing scholarly work, but has a reputation as a publisher for the alternative media (In 1985, Grove Press became part of Grove Weidenfeld, which later merged with Atlantic Monthly Press to form Grove Atlantic. Since 1993, Grove Press has been both a hardcover and paperback imprint of Grove Atlantic, publishing fiction, drama, poetry, literature in translation, and general nonfiction. [69]). Plus, the source received negative peer reviews. We can use it as a source for some neutral facts though. Talking about presenting major viewpoints, those viewpoints must be presented by an unbiased and reliable source, otherwise we must rely on your cherry picking from biased sources, what viewpoints will or won't be presented. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As you know when you read the guidelines not all sources need to be from a scholarly source. And again I quote: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate." The publishing house has been in existence since 1917 and has published many award winning books see link. [[70]] obviously known for publishing excellence which includes editorial control and reputation for fact-checking. The author Mr. Sullivan was completely independent from the topic as he began his investigations into Medjugorje. In the end he was deeply touched by the phenomena and included the reader in this experience. If you call that biased, then all we need to do is include inline citations.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, the award-wining books are novels, not scholarly work. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken again... Also you seem to forget that other types of sources beyond scholarly sources are accepted by Wikipedia. Sullivans book was the result of tremendous research.21:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Novels aren't sources and cannot be used as such on Wikipedia and Sullivan isn't a reliable source by any criteria. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Where in the world did you come up with the idea that his book is a novel? Also apparently you didn't see the awards group and they were not all novels. Sullivan thoroughly fact researched for this book. If you make a claim be sure to back it up with documentation. There is no reason for me to respond to your imaginations.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Encylcopedia of Religious Phenomena: Dubious. "In a largely Muslim region" - what region? The region Medjugorje is situated in is largely Catholic. It is surrounded by other, hundreds of Catholic villages. It wasn't "heaven" for Catholics in any context.

If this reliable source contradicts something that you are writing then both views need to be in this article. No editor can control what reliable sources can be used on any page. Also I am not saying we include every single word or sentence.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this source, in particular, contradicts me, however, this is factually wrong. the Municipality of Čitluk, of which Medjugorje is part, has an absolute Catholic majority. Surrounding municipalities, like Čapljina, Stolac, Ljubuški, etc, all have absolute Catholic majority. In fact, the region of Herzegovina, where Medjugorje is situated, has a Catholic majority. If we're talking about Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, the country had a relative Eastern Orthodox majority even during the socialist era. Therefore, what Muslim region this source is talking about? Second, Medjugorje was never a "safe haven" for Catholics of this region, nor was ever a religious center of any significance. Catholics had major shrines in Humac, Ljubuški, Široki Brijeg etc, while Medjugorje was really anonymous until the Coca-Cola apparitions. This isn't a view, it's a factual mistake. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is your information coming from and (2) does it reflect how things were in 1981 before the apparitions?Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

My information is coming from being aware of the demographics and geography there, and easily checking the data on Google and Wikipedia. The situation was pretty much the same ever since the Ottoman occupation. West Herzegovina was always Catholic, Eastern Herzegovina was Eastern Orthodox, and the area around Neretva had a significant Muslim population, though they never made a majority anywhere (except for Konjic and Jablanica). I know history and geography well. Any source will easily confirm this. Google it. On the other hand, you being unable to tell me where this "Muslim region" is located and what it's called tells me you're not familiar with the subject, and yet at the same time you insist using certain sources even though you've got zero understanding about the subject they're talking about. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Municipality of Čitluk - 1971 98% Croats (ie Catholics); 1981 97% Croats (ie Catholics); 1991 98% Croats, ie Catholics.

Check this out for the Bosnia-Herzegovina region - Muslims were dominate for the region Medjugorje was in. And that is why Medjugorje was a haven [[71]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't. Medjugorje was an anonymous village back then. "In a largely Muslim region, the village was a haven for Roman Catholics" - 1) What region? 2) When? 3) How? Interpreting that the region was Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes WP:Original Research, just like interpreting it as being any other region. The source fails to mention what region this is, when it was so, and how or why it was so. Reading the sentence from the source, one gets an impression that there were millions of Muslims with few Catholics gathered in Medjugorje. Anyone with a little knowledge about history of Bosnia and Herzegovina knows it wasn't so. The Catholics were a major group, having around 17-20 percent of the population, and occupying large cities like Mostar and Sarajevo. Depicting Medjugorje as a "Catholic haven" is just silly. The Catholics had three cathedrals, hundreds of churches, established and organised church etc. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The link I provided was from the 1981 consensus - "1981 census According to the 1981 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia population census, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina had 4,124.008 inhabitants: Muslims (later Bosniaks carried the name Muslims) 1,629,924 (39.5%)- The muslims in this region were the dominate at that time. Medjugorje that was in this region was mostly Catholic at the time. It matters little whether we use the word haven or not. Like I said I am giving direct quotes and you know as well as I that we need to write it in our own words using the direct quote as a guide. If we keep going like this the article will never get written.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And all you've said is original research – your own conclusion of what the source was trying to say. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Again you imagine things and try to destroy another source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

--Governor Sheng (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Deviancy Section

The Religious section is short and concise dealing with the Religious situation at the time of the first apparition 1980-1981. Any reference to the Medjugorje visions in this section is not going to work because this section describes the situation before the Medjugorje visions. I took this section and shrank it down to get right to the point. Also it is important to point out that this is Margry's opinion and a fringe theory [[72]]. I also fixed the reference in accordance to the original format on this page:

In the opinion of Peter Jan Margry’s, significant growth of reported Marian apparitions occurred, especially during the 1980s. According to Margry, the deviancy of such movements is observed in their formal espousing of Catholic teachings, and obedience to the Church and the Pope. However, in practice, they consider messages to be authentic revelations, have connections to excommunicated priests, and disobey the Church and the Pope. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. [...] Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter.

Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources. [...]

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources."

Margry is a reliable source. Considering what WP:FRINGE states, there's no reason to exclude his term. Note to be taken, he just coined the term, but the existance of such network or cult is generally accepted. They're often referred to as "contested devotions", "contested apparitions", "contested cults" etc. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(1) You are right, Margry's fringe theory comes from one source. We can either exclude it completely from the article or briefly mention it with an inline citation following due weight WP:WEIGHT guidelines, (2) anything related to the Medjugorje visions needs to be excluded because this section relates to how things were before the visions. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Rough Draft of Religious Section

I am presenting a rough draft of the Religious Section on July 15, 2021. @GovernorSheng - Please look over my rough draft and offer any suggestions that would improve the section. We need to negotiate and look from a neutral perspective as we move forward. I took out unnecessary excess. This section is explaining the religious situation just before the visions began and should be keep precise without much detail.

The religious situation just before the time of the first visions of Our Lady of Medjugorje was complex. The Catholic Church had previously made a decision to expand the diocesan jurisdiction to Herzegovina, where the village of Medjugorje is. The Franciscans would no longer be in charge. The Franciscans of Herzegovina would be forced to lead a monastic life rather than pastoral. They saw this as a threat to their survival, depriving them of a source of income and to their role as community social leaders which they attained over centuries of “difficult missionary” work while under Turkish domination. Previously in 1340 the Bosnia Franciscans were sent from “Rome as inquisitors to root out heresy of the Bosnian Church which had spread to the entire region.”

The roots of this conflict, known as the Herzegovina Affair or Herzegovina Case, date back to 1923, when Rome made a decision to have the Franciscans turn over half of the parishes they control to the secular clergy. A smooth transition was inhibited by both a lack of sufficient diocesan clergy and by the resistance of the friars to the divestment of their parishes. The Franciscans complied only partially and have refused to comply with Rome's decisions ever since. Their resistance to this change put them into conflict with the Church's hierarchy, including their Franciscan Order in Rome. In their struggle against the Church's decision, the Franciscans went against the Church's authority and canon law.

In 1975 Pope Paul VI, Romanis Pontificibus, decreed that the Franciscans must withdraw from most of the parishes in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, retaining 30 and leaving 52 to the diocesan clergy. In the 1980s the Franciscans still held 40 parishes under the direction of 80 friars.

In August 1980 the new bishop of Mostar, Pavao Zanic immediately announced that only one quarter of the city would remain under the Franciscans. Some parishioners revolted and Zanic accused the Franciscans of inciting them to riot.

Pope Pius XI had a "vision instructing him to erect a cross on the 'highest Herzegovinian Golgotha.'" In 1933 Pius XI requested a huge cross be erected on the mountain next to Medjugorje. In commemoration of the nineteen hundredth anniversary of the Crucifixion of Christ, he renamed the mountain Krizevac. which means Mount of the Cross. The Franciscan monk, Brno Smaljein, was given the task and brought the news to Medjugorje.

Mart Bax, a Dutch Anthropologist, refers to the two year period before the first apparition of Our Lady, as the period of the "mystical preparation," Velikonja wrote that it "would not have succeeded had it not been for the rich and long religious tradition of the region."

In the opinion of Peter Jan Margry’s, significant growth of reported Marian apparitions occurred, especially during the 1980s. According to Margry, the deviancy of such movements is observed in their formal espousing of Catholic teachings, and obedience to the Church and the Pope. However, in practice, they consider the messages to be authentic revelations, have connections to excommunicated priests, and disobey the Church and the Pope. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have waited over a month and a half for a discussion with no response from Governor Sheng. Next time I will only wait two weeks. This section is about the time period before the visions began. I took out unnecessary excess. This section is explaining the religious situation as concise as possible and should be keep precise without too much detail. As in all articles the point of view from all involved needs to be included. So I edited the above a little bit and placed it in the article. Do not revert and discuss any concerns here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You're well aware that I'm opposed to including anything as long as you add Sullivan as a source. He's not a scholarly source by any standard. Moreover, I think that currently, the section looks more or less good, though some trimming might be necessary. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Governor Sheng you cannot control this page. I placed a new draft and opened it up for discussion and left it for a month and a half. You did not make one comment. You cannot come back and then revert it. Your analyze of the Sullivan is not supported by anyone else and even our experienced editor said it was fine and if you read the guidelines that I have presented over and over, you would see this source is fine. You are mistaken here. Also, I included new information to bring the section into balance and took out a lot of excess. You never took the time to comment on any of it. An editor cannot hold a page hostage.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It was clear from my previous statements that I'm opposed to including Sullivan as a source since he is 1) non-relaible, 2) not a scholarly source and 3) biased. Simply repeating your proposal and me not answering it doesn't mean you gained a consensus. I'm an experienced editor as well, and I tell you he is not reliable.

P.S. Mart Bax is a discredited author. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You are grossly in error. I encourage you to re read the MANY times I have proven to you that this source can be used on Wikipedia.

Nor you or any other editor can hold a page hostage. Wikipedia is set up to work collaboratively with other editors. In order to do that each editor needs to give and take. Are you able to do that? Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok this is me compromising. I removed the only sentence attribute by Sullivan in this particular section - Some parishioners revolted and Zanic accused the Franciscans of inciting them to riot. I will be using him in other sections however.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Also I did not repeat my proposal I wrote up a whole new draft which you refused to read.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I found Slp1 sandbox rough draft and pulled a sentence with Maunders book and placed it in this section. I did a minor edit.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed this sentence from Religious section because it is already in the Political section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Conventual

"The Franciscans of Herzegovina would be forced to lead a monastic life rather than pastoral." Swapped out "conventual" for "monastic" since the Franciscans are not monks, and "conventual" is what the source says. However, the Franciscans of Herzegovina are members of the Order of Friars Minor (ofm), not Order of Friars Minor Conventual (OFM Conv.), nor Order of Friars Minor Capuchin (OFM Cap.), both of which are entirely separate branches. A fine distinction, but important. The Herzegovina friars could not be "forced" to revert to something they were never in the first place. The phrase is misleading and confusing. Manannan67 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter which word we use, they both have the same definition. [73] So if you would rather use conventual then go ahead.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Pius XI's vision

"Pope Pius XI had a "vision instructing him to erect a cross on the 'highest Herzegovinian Golgotha." First, as to sources: Velikonja says, "(...according to the official version)...Brno Smoljan...brought the news..." As I cannot access the foonote cited, I would like to know what "official version" and where did he get this? As for Kengor, he is neither a papal historian, nor an expert on Balkan politics, -nor does he indicate where he got it.
I have found a couple of versions, one says that the people wanted to express their gratitude to God for the end of crop-damaging hailstorms and to commemorate the nineteenth centenary of the Redemption, and they heard that this was something the Pope wanted.[74]. A second version says that "According to local legend', friar Brno Smoljan "was summoned to Rome in 1933" and told that the God had told the Pope in a dream to have the cross erected.[75] Sometimes it's Mary who told him.
Both versions raise questions. In 1933, Pius is writing Dilectissima Nobis re Spain, and worrying about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and how that will likely effect Austria and Italy. Of all the countries to draw his attention, Herzegovina hardly seems top of his dance card. If he wanted a cross erected anywhere in the world, why not cable the appropriate nuncio? One version has his dream confirmed by a request from the Bishop of Mostar. Who is Brno Smoljan, that Pius would even have heard of him, let alone summon him to Rome? Pius was a blunt individual, not given to secret fantasies. It sounds like somewhere along the line "The Holy Father will like this," became The Holy Father wants this," and that Smoljan used it to bring in other villages to help with a project the people of Medjugorje had already been persuaded to. Yet a popular, local legend is herein presented as fact. Manannan67 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting sources that you found. One thing to clear up right away is that we can only use reliable sources, as I mentioned below and as you know I am sure. Both of the sources I gave are reliable. I suggest after reviewing whether the sources you found passed the criteria for a reliable source and can explain how, then we can add another version after what I posted. What do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As I indicated before, Kergon is out of his field. The problem with Velikonja is that he is unfortunately outdated and quoted a source that has since been soundly impeached. Frankly, I'm not all that impressed with Lindsey, but if you bothered to check, you would have seen that O'Dell is published by OSV and her book actually carries an imprimatur. Manannan67 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Again as I stated before the guidelines for a reliable source: A reliable source is: Published by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking, the author is Independent from the subject and it is a secondary source. The book A Pope and a President by the author Paul Kengor satisfies all the criteria.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the two sources you found, would you be able to check to see if they are reliable sources? I have to work right now and don't have time to check your references. Please post the results. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What is it you're not seeing: Catherine Odell, Those Who Saw Her: Apparitions of Mary, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2010. (Nihil Obstat, M. Heintz PhD., Imprimatur, Kevin C. Rhoades); OSV established over 100 yrs. and the exclusive distributor of the North American English edition of the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.
As for Kengor, you are referred to WP:SOURCEDEF Source includes the work, the writer, and the publisher. "Any of the three can affect reliability" i.e, "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject", qualifications which "should be demonstrable to other people". Kengor demonstrates absolutely no expertise in the subject at hand. "A Pope and a President" is woefully inadequate as it does not indicate what is being quoted, or where he got it from, and appears to be simply a passing comment in a book about Reagan and JPII. It is completely off-topic.

See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS In re Bax, it has just been demonstrated that a reputable publisher can publish content from a less than reliable source.
As for ISI, "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that ...any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."
There are a number of sources to locate information re the popes: AAS, Vatican News Service, L'Osservatore Romano, even Zenit, none of which have ever mentioned anything about the hard-headed Pius XI having some sort of dream/vision about anything. I am still waiting for the "official version" to which Velikonja referred, and where it came from, but then again he's the one who took Bax at face value. Manannan67 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(1) Your link to Sourcedef and your words don't match. Here is the def - "Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Somehow you missed the part about or both which of course means we can use "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process" which fits Kengor perfectly. Stop wasting my time. (2) again you are writing incorrectly again. The quote is on page 208 and does have a reference. So I am sorry but this book is a reliable, secondary source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

ISI Books was started in the early 1950's and is a well established and reputable publisher.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In reviewing the two sources and your source - they are all three very similar. I will write up something that takes it all in and present it here for us all to look at tomorrow.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension. The salient section is Any of the three can affect reliability. I even highlighted for you. I beg to inform you that THAT DOES NOT MEAN a source can qualify on any one of the above counts, but that it can FAIL, on any one. Regardless of the publisher's point of view, the book is about Reagan and JPII, not about religious politics in the Balkans, a subject in which Kengor appears to have little interest let alone expertise. Your so-called sources have as yet failed to indicate where reports of this so-called vision came from. Their repeating it, doesn't make it true. When you finally decide what page it's on, please provide the exact quote and its derivation. Manannan67 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There is not need to insult people on Wikipedia. I know exactly what it means and the book A POPE AND A PRESIDENT by Paul Kengor passes in all three areas. Perhaps reread the section on Source Def that I wrote. It explains it thoroughly. I don't need to rewrite it again. Stop concerning yourself with the word "Vision" which comes from only one book. I am going to take out that part and use the dream scenario from your source. I could care less about keeping the word vision it doesn't matter in the overall picture.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Dream" is no more valid if it's nothing more than a story somebody made-up; and you haven't shown that it isn't. Manannan67 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You suggested this reference or source not me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I just doubled checked and the dream rendition is not in that book. Getting tired. Will continue on tomorrow.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the book The Visions of the Children by Connell. She clearly states that it is a legend so obviously we cannot post that on Wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent Reversions

Blanket reverting is unprofessional and not supported on Wikipedia. Look at each edit, read the talk page discussions and add your concerns for discussion. I just put back information that Mannan and I already discussed above and I will continue to do so unless you can show here why not. He also improved the article by restructuring some sections and is welcome here.

When to revert - [[76]] - "contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles).Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just because I or other editors aren't around, doesn't mean that you get to do whatever you want. We had a discussion about Kutleša, and you disregarded it and went to singlehandedly remove him from the article. This is not hones editing, especially not constructive. Unless you have a third-party proof that Kutleša is unreliable as a source, that is, except your own claims, then we can proceed with the discussion. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I know you are watching, don't worry about that. I only partially removed Ogledalo pravde with good cause any time it is used for a living person. This is not over. The discussion is not about Kutlesa who was hired/appointed to do an editing job for Bishop Peric. This is a primary source that is not neutral.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Says who? Were there any peer reviews on Kutleša that cast doubt on him as a reliable source? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Again it is not about Kutlesa because he was just a requested editor for Bishop Peric.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We're running in circles. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Reference in question

I removed this source because it is not a reliable source and is a primary source on a controversial page.
Disputed reference Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian) published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar:
(1) Dražen Kutleša prepared the book for Bishop Peric who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions which means it is not Independent from the subject (See the last paragraph on this page beginning with Drazen Kutlesa) Here is the pdf [[77]]
Google translated from title page:
MIRROR JUSTICE
Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar
about alleged apparitions and messages
in Medjugorje
Prepared by
Don Drazen
Mostar, 2001.
(2) Drazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 and the beginning paragraph google translated: "By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."
(3) Bishop Ratko Peric oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. He took over from Bishop Pavao Zanic who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from the beginning in 1981 to his retirement in 1993.Bishop Peric is not independent but was directly involved in the controversy of Medjugorje.
(4) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314) to this pdf.
(5) It was printed by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar.
(6) It is a compilation of interviews and statements including from the previous Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric added a few comments of his own. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.
It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje which is a controversial subject.[[78]]

(1) This is an unreliable, primary source
(2) This is self-published by Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar.
(3) Not independent from the apparitions but directly involved.
(4) Kutlesa prepared and compiled this for Bishop Peric/Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar
(5) This should not be used on any page that has to do with Medjugorje
(6) This unreliable primary source is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje: Our Lady of Medjugorje Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.

Governor Sheng has already placed Ogledalo pravde on RSN with no response [[79]]

Governor Sheng also placed the references for this article on the RSN. "An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used. [[80]] The expert editor Slp1 that was working with us on the Our Lady Of Medjugorje page answered the request and here it is: "As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life." Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 There are many living persons within this article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with the neutrality templates you just placed on this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still alive and kicking. Don't worry. Kutleša is here to stay. First of all - find a peer review that states Kutleša is not reliable. Second, I found peer reviews for Sullivan. Unlike Sullivan, Kutleša is a scholar. And if you insist Kutleša is unreliable, although no evidence provided, request a review. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As you know Wikipedia has their own guidelines and this source being used, Ogledalo pravde by Bishop Peric who asked Kutlesa to do the work is not a reliable source. Read carefully what I wrote and you will understand this.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I can only hear your echo. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Kutleša was a professor at the University of Sarajevo, and the book was published by the Bishop's Ordinariate. The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example: [81], [82], [83], [84]). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica [85], Božidar Petrač [86], Marijan Sivrić [87], Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: Vjeko Božo Jarak [88], Marina Beus [89], Božo Goluža [90], Ivica Šarac [91] etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive [92], the University of Osijek [93]), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher.

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

Now, regarding Perić. Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [94], [95] [96], [97], [98], [99]. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [100] [101] [102]. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska Smotra, University of Zagreb; Hercegovina, University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author. That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. [103]

We can see from the above paragraphs that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source. In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources.

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

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

Peter Jan Margry who is an authority with good standing on this subject, reviewed his book, and although he commanded it for its philosophical aspects, he nevertheless was critical of its bias, referring to it as "apologetic". Margry writes: "Klimek’s colleagues from Boston College, Franciscan College of Steubenville, and Catholic University of America all praise the book in glowing terms on the Oxford University Press website. This raises the question of why the press decided to publish an apologetic rather than traditionally scholarly work. But a further complication is that the Franciscans themselves are managing the Medjugorje shrine, and have been battling the Vatican for decades to get their heavily contested shrine acknowledged as a site of a supernatural character. And the author? A third order Franciscan friar." [104]

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

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

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

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

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

— [105]

In conclusion, Klimek and Sullivan aren't reliable sources. Kutleša and Perić can be used as a source and are considered reliable. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussions as of 10-3-21

The intent has been to keep clutter off this page. So each section like the Religious situation has been kept short and deals with the Religious situation just before the apparitions in 1981. It gives the reader a sense of what was happening just before the visions.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No. It gives a general view of the religious situation. If events that occurred after the apparition are necessary to explain the whole picture, then they should be mentioned in the section as well. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest you take a look at Slp1's draft which cleared out a tremendous amount of clutter and too much detail. Wikipedia should clear, clean without a lot clutter detail. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Also once again you blanket reverse everything without even reading it all. You even reversed Manannan67's edits. Such a lack of respect for your fellow editors and you bulldoze away doing your own thing.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Says a person that ignored a lengthy discussion about a source, and went on a rampage thinking I'm not around. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually I have not ignored any of our discussions. I completely disagree with using a primary source from a person who has a negative POV about the subject of this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c&ab_channel=klatica --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

‎@Manannan67: Paragraph in question: In 1933 the Catholics, in the region of Medjugorje, heard from the diocese that the current pope at that time, Pope Pius XI, wanted a massive cross erected on the highest mountain next to Medjugorje. I won't be providing exact quotes for every entry I make.
Exact quotes:
(1) Those Who Saw Her - page 211 - The region (Bosnia and Herzegovina as stated in first paragraph) had also heard that the Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, wanted a cross erected.
(2) The Pope and the President - page 265 - The diocese had built the massive cross to commemorate the 1,900th anniversary of Christ's crucifixion
(3) Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina page At the pope's request a huge cross was erected on the mountain which had been renamed Krizvac in 1933 to commemorate the nineteen hundredth anniversary of the Crucifixion.

Also, the other comments you have made on the page, many are not my edits - not sure who is going to correct them. Feel free to do so or we could work together to clean up this cluttered page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Those Who Saw Her is a terrible source. Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina doesn't even mention this. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a fake allegation originating from discredited Bax. Friar Robert Jolić writes: "

On pp. 27‒29 (n. 8) Bax gives information about an Association of Priests entitled Dobri pastir (The Good Shepherd). However, this issue goes beyond his comprehension so it is fraught with errors and misinformation.

Let me give a few striking examples from the last part of the book.

“Father Brno, the leading priest of the parish, was summoned to Rome in 1932. In a dream, Pope Pius XI had been told to build a huge cross on the highest mountain in Herzegovina in honour of the 1900th anniversary of the crucifixion of Christ. According to the Holy Father, having this cross in the vicinity would mean salvation for numerous believers”. Bax claims that friar Janko Babić (?) told him this. According to Pope’s wishes friar Bernardin (Brno) Smoljan had a cross built at Šipovac (pp. 72–73). Šipovac (Križevac) is by no means the highest mountain in Herzegovina; the Pope did not have such a dream nor did he summon friar Bernardin to Rome. He advised the whole Catholic world to build crosses on the dominant mountains in honour of the 1900th anniversary of the crucifixion of Christ.

- Jolić, Robert: Fabrications on Medjugorje: on Mart Bax’ Research, p. 325.

Jolić is a Herzegovinian Franciscan and a historian. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Velikonja, on page 209, uses discredited Bax as a source:

At the pope’s request (according to the official version, Pius XI had a vision instructing him to erect a cross on the “highest Herzegovinian Golgotha”) a huge cross was erected on the mountain, which had been renamed Krizˇevac in 1933 to commemorate the nineteen hundredth anniversary of the Crucifixion. Brno Smoljan, a Franciscan monk who was also charged with accomplishing the task, brought the news to Medjugorje.

The case is clear. There was no dream, the Pope expressed the wish for construction of crosses for the whole world, he hadn't Medjugorje in mind at all. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Not only was there no dream but there was no vision which was referenced as a folk lore. Yes Mart Bax has been discredited as pointed out by @Manannan67:. We have no idea what Pope XI was thinking. In regards to the reference, Those Who Saw Her, which is a secondary source, publisher is well respected established in 1912 and known for fact checking, the author is not directly involved in Medjugorje, is a reliable source. Talk to Manannan67 as well because he is the one who found and brought it here. Good job finding the Jolic reference! Very helpful.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Ogledalo pravde only

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

(1) Not Independent from the subject - Dražen Kutleša is the editor who prepared the book for Bishop Peric who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions.(Also see (2) & (3) about Drazen Kutlesa) Here is the pdf [[106]]
Google translated from title page: MIRROR JUSTICE, Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar, about alleged apparitions and messages, in Medjugorje, Prepared by Don Drazen, Mostar, 2001.

(2) Not the author but the editorDrazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 and the beginning paragraph google translated: "By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."[[107]]

(3) Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric both oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions and had negative WP:POV's on the subject see link [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratko_Peri%C4%87#Medjugorje]] from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. He took over from Bishop Pavao Zanic who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from the beginning in 1981 to his retirement in 1993. Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric are not independent but were directly involved in the controversy of Medjugorje and had POV's about the subject.

(4) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314) to this pdf.[[108]]

(5) Self published - the publishing is directly under Bishop Peric's direction. It was published by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar directly under Bishop Peric. "The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno is the head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, who is responsible for looking after its spiritual and administrative needs". List_of_Roman_Catholic_bishops_of_Mostar-Duvno
no ISBN Number to prove it was officially published To be a reliable source it has to be published.

(6) Collection of primary sources WP:PSTS It is a compilation of interviews and statements including from the previous Bishop Zanic. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.See in the pdf on page 3 the list of names [[109]]

(7) This unreliable, primary source is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje and at least three are still living: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.

(8) There are many living persons within this article: The visionaries: Ivan Dragićević, Ivanka Ivanković, Jakov Čolo, Marija Pavlović, Mirjana Dragićević, Vicka Ivanković and Jelena Vasilj. The clergy: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbaric, Tomislav Vlasic, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivica Vego. And etc...

(9) It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje which is a controversial subject.[[110]]

(10) Governor Sheng has already placed Ogledalo pravde on RSN with no response [[111]]

(11) Governor Sheng also placed the reference for this article on the RSN. "An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used. [[112]] The expert editor Slp1 that was working with us on the Our Lady Of Medjugorje page answered the request and here it is: "As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life." Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

All this you've said constitutes Wikipedia:Original research. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you study exactly what original research is because it is not what I have done. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

All you've said is a bad interpretation of Wikipedia's rules. 1) Even if Perić commissioned writing Ogledalo pravde, it doesn't make it a primary source by any account. 2) Kutleša is the author of the book - a scholar, and a third-party person. 3) The publisher is reliable, as per all what I've writen aboive. Instead of commenting this directly, you're repeating yourself.

So, in detail, if Perić commissioned the writing of the book, there's no logical way of making Kutleša directly involved in the matter. Then again, even if he was directly involved, still, he as a noted and reliable scholar (university professor) can be used as a source.

Second, one must be surprised, since you don't speak Croatian you know what is the book made of... You made it up or did you become fluent overnight? Let me respond to your points. 1) The book being non-independent/independent of the subject doesn't mean it cannot be used as a source. 2) Kutleša is both, the author and the editor. 3) Irrelevant. Bishop isn't the author. 4) Irrelevant as per 3). 5) Not self-published by definition. Self-published means the books was published out of author's pocket. Not true. 6) Why do you make things up? I'm astonished by your Croatian fluency. Either you learned the language by heart or you're making shit up. 7) Same as 6. 8) So effing what?

By the by, your interpretation of WP:PSTS is really funny. LOL. Every scholarly work uses primary sources... How the hell would you write a scholarly book? "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed"... Same goes for tertiary sources. You're one bright cookie. :)

Now, let's discuss Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Kutleša was a professor at the University of Sarajevo, and the book was published by the Bishop's Ordinariate. The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example: [113], [114], [115], [116]). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica [117], Božidar Petrač [118], Marijan Sivrić [119], Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: Vjeko Božo Jarak [120], Marina Beus [121], Božo Goluža [122], Ivica Šarac [123] etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive [124], the University of Osijek [125]), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher.

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

Now, regarding Perić. Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [126], [127] [128], [129], [130], [131]. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [132] [133] [134]. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska Smotra, University of Zagreb; Hercegovina, University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author. That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. [135]

We can see from the above paragraphs that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source. In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources.

Note. Ogledalo pravde is not a compilation of interviews and statements, though it includes them. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Kutlesa was not independent. At the time he organized Ogledalo Pravde for the Bishop, he was working as a clerk at the The Bishop's Episcopal Ordinariate located in Mostar [[136]] which means he was working for and under the instruction of Bishop Ratko Peric. Peric was a prelate of the Catholic Church who served as the bishop of Mostar-Duvno and apostolic administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. [[137]]- From Kutlesa's wikipedia page - "He has mostly worked on his dissertation in Mostar as a clerk at the Episcopal Ordinariate since 1998. and in 2003 he is still in Mostar where "he published in Mostar a part of his thesis in Italian".

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

Bishop Zanic was not independent and the Bishop before Peric and was also directly involved in the visions of Medjugorje. The book Ogledalo Pravde is a compilation of statements and events in regards to Medjugore. He also was not a neutral source and any book compiled by him about the visions of Medjugorje is a primary source.

Primary Source - On the title page of Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) it says: "Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje" (easily translated by google translate). This book is being presented by the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar with the clerk Kutlesa doing the compiling and editing for the Bishop Peric of the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar. On page 4 it translates as: BISHOP'S ORDINARY MOSTAR, THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE, Preparation and syllable: Don Drazen Kutlesa

Self-published Publisher is also the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar which is under the Bishop who was Peric at that time. "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." [[138]]

In regards to your concern about translating. I have been using Google Translate or Bing translate to be able to read this pdf. If you want feel free to double check me.

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings [[139]]:
1) The work itself (the article, book)
2) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
3) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
All three can affect reliability.
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [[140]]

In conclusion: Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) is a primary source, self published and "Point of View"
1) The work - Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) - a primary source
2) The creator of the work - Bishop Peric - not independent, Clerk Kutlesa - not independent
3) The publisher - Peric self-published from his own organization
Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Red Rose 13: I notice you seem to have reverted all my edits as apparently some sort of autonomic reflex. There is no intelligent rationale for repeating an entire paragraph in two places. How do you define "excellent"? Kengor has no expertise in the subject area at all. Bax cannot be relied on for a weather report. The only reason Vrije Universiteit didn't bring legal action is because he's old. It appears you are not quite familiar with Franciscans. Every edit does not require your nihil obstat. Manannan67 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC) p.s., you need serious sources to allege a pope is hallucinating.

First of all I am not here to fight, I am here to improve this page and others. I noticed you reverted my edits without discussing it here. I didn't revert everything of yours because some of what you did was helpful. If you would look at my comments when I reverted you would have noticed that we are working on this page and so if there is a repeat sentence after the Political and Religious section then that is the one that needs deleting.

when evaluating a book to use on Wikipedia we need to use Wikipedia guidelines. A reliable source is: Published, the author is Independent from the subject, Publisher has a reputation for fact checking. (1) This book was published by Texas A&M University Press - https://www.tamupress.com/ Founded in 1974, Texas A&M University Press is the book publishing arm of one of the nation’s leading research and land grant institutions. Throughout its history, the Press has enjoyed strong support from the University and the entire Texas A&M community, and that support has been essential to the Press’s growth and success. Texas A&M University Press has won more than 500 book awards, including major scholarly awards in all fields in which we publish; all major Texas book awards; and nationally prestigious awards from Garden Writers Association, National Outdoor Book Awards, American Library Association Best of the Best, National Cowboy Hall of Fame, National Book Foundation, Western Writers of America, PEN American Center, Army Historical Foundation, and many others. (2) the author is independent of the subject and (3) Publisher has a reputation for fact checking.

Your opinion about Bax isn't relevant on Wikipedia. He was quoted in this reliable book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

First, you are absolutely wrong. I have explained each of my edits both in a detailed edit summary and here. The information regarding the government's response belongs under the discussion pertaining to the government. "political situation" is entirely too broad.

Secondly, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Texas A&M, and only tangentially with Velikonja, whose book was published five years before Mart Bax's academic idiosyncrasies came to light. One must question if a reputable academic concerned for his own reputation would have so readily quoted Bax if he knew then that the Vrije Universiteit announced that it was warning academic publishers against Bax. It is not if he accurately quoted Bax. No respectable academic will quote him at all. This is not my opinion of Bax, but that of his own university. All this information is readily available. Why are you defending him, when his own university won't in order to protect their reputation? Manannan67 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC) -I have requested a Third Opinion re the section re redundant government response.

Then if you have information regarding Bax then please share it here for us all to see.

In regards to the Govt and Cath Church response section. There are many statements there that do not belong and have not been removed yet. The statement in the Political section can be edited to exclude things that happened after the apparitions started in 1981. This section is focused on how things were in 1981 just before the apparitions. I just reread the paragraph and you are right. It should be in the other section. All the dates are related to things that happened after the apparition.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As already indicated in a previous edit summary: google him yourself; there is plenty of info, Manannan67 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I found an article about him on Wikipedia actually and yes it seems he has been discredited. I will remove that sentence.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Our Lady of Medjugorje and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

There is substantial duplication in the Political situation and Government response sections. Manannan67 and Red Rose 13 seem to have approached, or even reached, agreement that this duplication should be dealt with. I agree that one near-copy of the content should be removed, and I think it makes sense to remove it from the Political situation section. As Red Rose 13 says, that section should mainly focus on background. Thank you for seeking a third opinion. I have this page on my watchlist and I will be happy to respond to clarification or follow-up questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. This page is actually in the process of a transformation. Slp1 our mentor created a rough draft and cleaned out a lot of clutter and removed primary sources. See here [[141]]. I am pulling from that and adding what seems needed. We are just finishing up the Religious Section. We are slowly moving down the list.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:

Are you comfortable evaluating sources where you could help us resolve the struggle we are in with the sources? The first one is Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) and you can see the ongoing discussions we are having on the talk page. Also there is a discussion here: [[142]] Do you have any thoughts? thank you Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about The Miracle Detective only - Do not archive

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

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

• Sullivan has written for numerous widely recognized publications, which include The Guardian, Esquire, The Washington Post, Wired and Rolling Stone He was an atheist most of his life. "Among his notable works are "The Price of Experience", "Labyrinth" and "The Miracle Detective", all were nominated for Pulitzer Prize."[[143]]
  

3)The publisher of the work - Grove Press, NY - established in 1947 - editorial control with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[[144]] Gross Press publishes a variety of books including Biographies, Autobiographies, Historical, Fiction, Nonfiction, Investigative, etc...

• Wikipedia guidance: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". [[145]]
• From the publisher: "In a tiny, dilapidated trailer in northeastern Oregon, a young Mexican woman saw a vision of the Virgin Mary in an ordinary landscape painting hanging on her bedroom wall. After being met with skepticism from the local parish, the Catholic diocese officially placed the matter "under investigation. Investigative journalist Randall Sullivan wanted to know how exactly one might conduct the official inquiry into such an incident and set off to interview "the miracle detectives." These were the theologians, historians, and postulators from the Sacred Congregation of the Causes for Saints who were charged by the Vatican with testing the miraculous and judging the holy. What Sullivan didn't know was that his own investigation would lead from Vatican City in Rome to the tiny village of Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where six visionaries have been receiving apparitions of the Virgin Mary." [[146]]
  

4) Reviews:

• Publisher Weekly - [[147]]
  

Peer reviews:

• The Dubious Disciple by Lee Harmon [[148]]
  
• Kirkus Review [[149]] The Kirkus team [[150]]
  
• Written by Bart McDowell, an award-winning writer and senior editor at National Geographic magazine in Washington for 32 years. The BIO of Bart McDowell [[151]]Review of book [[152]]
  

In regards to Governor Sheng's allegation that Sullivan might be biased, here is guidance from Wikipedia "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." This source meets these requirements. [[153]]
Governor Sheng is saying that this book is a novel. As anyone can see it is not.
In conclusion: The Miracle Detective is a reliable, independent, secondary source for this page and for all pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Medjugorje and the Supernatural only - Do not archive

Following the same wikipedia guidelines as above:

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

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

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

Reviews

• "Klimek's impressive study manages to bring faith and science into earnest conversation in a manner that is both learned and accessible ... This is an important book for anyone desiring a way to think about religious experience that betrays neither faith nor science." — Luke Timothy Johnson, Commonweal Magazine
• The Journal of Scientific Exploration [[154]]

Peer Reviews:

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

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

Discussion as of 10/26/21 - Do not archive

Removed the sentence involving living people with this source discussed below and in a previous discussion in more detail. In the guidelines for LP, it says to immediately remove sentences with unreliable sources.
1) The work - Ogledalo Pravde (The mirror of justice) - a primary source
2) The creator of the work - Bishop Peric - not independent, Clerk Kutlesa - not independent
3) The publisher - Peric self-published from his own organization
The second sentence in this section (with a reliable secondary source) covers the subject about smoking and the lost sheep. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Had to revert GShengs reverting edits again as instructed by the guidelines for Living People, regarding contentious words that were using a primary, not independent source and self-published. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Continuing the clean-up and clarification. See my notes when editing.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)