Talk:Tomislav Vlašić

Discussions as of 4/23/21

I removed controversial statements using primary sources for a living person following the guidelines of Biographies of living persons.Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

These are reliable sources per WP:PRIMARY and WP:Reliable sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but they are primary sources being used for controversy on a Living Persons page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

At some instances, we can use even primary sources. Read the policy. However, if you're talking about self-published sources, then non of the sources you deleted were self-published. Bulat was a professor at the University of Split, and his book wasn't published out of his own resources (it was published by the Episcopal Ordinariate of Mostar) and Perić's article at Vijesnik was published by a publishing house called "Crkva na kamenu", not out of his own pocket. Thus, not self-published. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are the sentences in violation and yes they are self-published by their own Diocese where they live and work and if I were you I would review the Wikipedia policies on Living Persons and reread our discussions in the Archives:

• This is Ratko Peric, the recent Bishop involved in Medjugorje "when he moved to Medjugorje without the bishop's approval"
• Ratko Peric is writing about his predecessor The local bishop, Ratko Perić, writes that Vlašić was officially proposed to become a chaplain in Medjugorje only on 19 July 1982, and Bishop Žanić, still unaware of his affair in Zagreb, approved his appointment on 27 July 1982.
• Ratko Peric is implying that Vlasic was manipulating the seersPerić further writes that Vlašić cooperated with friar Slavko Barbarić in directing the seers, instructing them how to behave. Both of them forbade the seers to give any statements without their prior knowledge.
• This is Nikola Bulat, a priest and a member of the commission that examined the Our Lady of Medjugorje apparitions critiquing Vlašić Vlašić conducted the Chronicle of Apparitions (Kronika ukazanja). The Chronicle covers the period from 11 August 1981 to 15 October 1983. The chronicle is written to give the impression of immediacy, using terms such as “same scene as yesterday” or “tonight” and “tonight”. However, Nikola Bulat, a member of the commission that examined the apparitions, concluded that the Chronicle wasn't written daily as it seems. Under the number dates, events that occurred later were recorded. The intro of the Chronicle was written only on 25 February 1982, so Bulat concludes that it is possible that Vlašić started writing the Chronicle only then, eight months after the apparitions or during October 1981 at its best.
  
• Ratko Peric "On 13 April 1984, Vlašić wrote to Pope John Paul II, referring to himself as "the one who, by God's mercy, leads the seers" and asked him to meet him. His letter remained unanswered.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• A note from Bulat not necessary on this page and I assume Vego & Prusina are still living Bulat 2006, pp. 24–25: "A similar record was made on January 20: 'Five children had a vision of the Mother of God this evening as well.' The visionaries also asked the question: 'What will Fr. Ivica Vego and Fr. Ivan Prusina do now that they have been expelled?' These are two disobedient chaplains who were suspended, ie they were forbidden to perform priestly duties and were dismissed from the Order of the OFM. Our Lady replied: 'They are not guilty. The bishop was hasty in his decision. Let them stay.' This fact interests us here only because the two mentioned chaplains were dismissed from the Order only on 29 January 1982. The act of dismissal from the OFM Order of the two mentioned chaplains was recorded in the Chronicle 9 days before they were dismissed. This clearly tells us that the wording: 'Five children and this evening ...', ie 20 January is not correct, because it did not happen that evening nor could it have been written that evening when the chaplains were fired 9 days later."

Bulat is not from the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, nor was he ever a member of the said diocese. Perić was the bishop of Mostar-Duvno, but none of his books was ever published out of his own pocket, thus not self-published. "Self-publish": to publish (a book) using the author's own resources [1] according to Merriam-Webster. Neither of these fits this category. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The truth is that he is a Primary source being a member of the commission that made the decisions about Our Lady of Medjugorje and the catholic church of which he belongs and serves, published his works.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, according to the policy on living persons, we can use primary sources, even if Bulat would be a primary source. I never used something like "trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" nor "public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". Moreover, Bulat's work is an independent tertiary source according to Wikipedia:Independent sources. He was a reputable scholar in his field [2], who was as such invited to be a part of the commission to examine the apparitions. He was a commission member [3] because of his reputation as an independent and reputable scholar. This only confirms him to be an independent third-party. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed on Living Persons pages when it is used for factual information that is helpful. The fact that Bulat was on the commission that made decisions about Our Lady of Medjugorje makes him a primary source on ALL the pages that are connected to OLM. Nothing can change that. Be sure to read the discussion on the archive page and Slp1 statement.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Him being a member of the commission actually confirms he is an independent party. It's like claiming that certain renowned scientists are unreliable because of their participation at the Copenhagen conference. Bulat's writings are factual, and he can be considered reliable, especially because of his scholarly work. He is not a primary source, especially because he discusses events prior the commission was formed. He would be considered primary if his writings were discussing the work of the commission iteslf. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Again we are bound by the Wikipedia guidelines and he is a primary source. Also, PLEASE read the guidelines for living people and our previous discussion in the Archives.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do the same. Thank you. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain this editing? @Governor Sheng: [[4]] Here you changed the correct name of the publisher to the words Crkva na kamenu which means on google translate: Church on stone and which means on Bing translate: Church on stone. You changed it from: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar which when translated by google means: Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar. Why did you take out the correct name and replace it with nonsense? Then I found the URL to the journal article you are referring to and added the URL and you deleted that. I also added the name of the publisher that was on that page. Then you edited the publishers name back to Biskupski ordinarijat but left out Mostar [[5]] Why is that? I am now going to return Mostar.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Then in your comments you go after me as the problem here: Stop being borderline hypocritical and using google translate (the result was a hiddious translation to Croatian [[6]] Please read these guidelines about personal attacks. [[7]]

Don't be. :) I overlooked it. If you scroll down, you'll see the graphic design was by Crkva na kamenu. There are other things you should be worried about, like the misrepresentation of sources and copyright violations. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

No Governor Sheng - it was completely correct originally and then you changed it to nonsense and then changed it back but left Mostar out and then blamed it on me. And once again you are accusing me. These are just facts that are in writing.Red Rose 13

(talk) 16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Also Peric is self-publishing.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Biskupski ordinarijat was changed to Crkva na kamenu. The mistake is now corrected. If you scroll down the first page of the magazine, you'll see that the graphic design was done by Crkva na kamenu. Period. I blamed you for the lame translation of the magazine's original name to some mumbo-jumbo in English. You're free to ask for an opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The books wasn't produced from his pocket, thus not self-published by definition. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Again
(1) Here is you changing the name of the publisher from the correct name that you originally placed there to an incorrect name [[8]] and in your comments saying "correcting the mistake"
(2) Here is me taking the name of the publisher from URL source and then you putting back your original publisher from your original edit but this time leaving out Mostar [[9]] and your comment is blaming me.
(3) Here I am returning Mostar that you didn't add [[10]]
Stop messing with the sources. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion of Primary Sources

• Observer comment: There may be some misunderstanding about the meaning of the term "primary sources". This phrase does not refer to people or their role in events. A primary source is an information document at the closest level: for example, a log book of a researcher; a historical document; the record of a court proceeding. For more info, please see [11]. In contrast, if someone independent of the events writes a book or article about them, and cites or quotes these primary source documents in his research, then the book or article is a secondary source.

About the organizations: "Biskupski Ordinarijat Mostar" is the office of the bishop in the diocese of Mostar; and "Crkva na kamenu" (meaning "Church upon the rock") is a Catholic news website (formerly a newspaper) based in Mostar. It is also an official institution in the Diocese of Mostar, listed here: [12].

Bishop Peric's account of events is a primary source, regardless of what organization published it. It probably should not be used for any contentious material in a biographical article about Vlasic. Some of the information reported in Bp. Peric's statement is probably also discussed in books about the case, so it may be possible to cite those. In contrast, if "Crkva na kamenu" interviewed Fr. Bulat, that is ordinary journalism and it can be cited, though statements should be attributed to Bulat.

I hope this provides a useful clarification. Bistropha (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarity on this subject - very helpful.

One question regarding Bulat. (from the reference section: Bulat, Nikola (2006). Istina će nas osloboditi [The Truth will set us free][[13]] (PDF) (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar.) Bulat wrote a document that was published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar as well.

• The Preface written by Bishop Peric - Peric expressed a good amount of his biased opinions about Medjugorje
  
• Don Nikola Bulat, a priest of the Split-Makarska Archdiocese, was a member of the expanded Episcopal Commission for the Investigation of Events in Medjugorje, 1984-1986 years.
  
• Bulat is not independent being a member of the Episcopal Commission for the investigation of Events in Medjugorje.
  
• Bulat's document was created directly from the Commissions investigation.
  
• Bulat's document was published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar
  
• So this source is a primary source.
  

What you saying is if he were interviewed by an independent reliable news source or referred to by an independent reliable author, it would then be secondary source, correct?
Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

One more question regarding primary sources - Kutleša, Dražen (2001). Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (PDF) (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar. - This document was prepared by Kutlesa for Bishop Peric, published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar, regarding events in Medjugorje including interviews, statements and even statements of the bishop - therefore a primary source. Is it allowed to use primary sources in any form on this page of a living person. Is it allowed to use primary sources on Biographies of people not living? I assume it should never be used for anything controversial, correct? Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bishop Perić's record cannot be a primary source when discussing Vlašić. Perić became a bishop in 1993, Vlašić left Herzegovina in 1988. Bistropha (talk · contribs), thank you for your contribution. However, I think you missed this important fact while trying to contribute in resolving the issue. Perić, when writing about Vlašić's activity before 1993 is a school example of a third party giving an account. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A note to you, Red Rose 13, your unfamiliarity with Croatian leads you to wrong conclusions. How on earth did you conclude that Bulat's book is "a document created directly from the Commission investigation"? --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Govenor Sheng - please translate the first few paragraphs of the Preface of his document [[14]] and place it here. That is what I placed in my comment above. I will copy and paste it here.

Preface (written by Bishop Peric see the end)

Don Nikola Bulat, a priest of the Split-Makarska Archdiocese, was a member of the expanded Episcopal Commission for the Investigation of Events in Medjugorje, 1984-1986. years. At the suggestion of Msgr. Pavle Žanić, Diocesan Bishop of Mostar (1980-1993), several members of the Commission were in charge and composed a plan for a book on the events of Medjugorje, which was intended to be published by the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar.

Translate this paragraph yourself, from page 7: "Ali do objavljivanja studije nije došlo. Nije poznato zašto." The paragraph talks about a study that was supposed to be published but never was, and as you can see (or obviously cannot see), it includes chapters never discussed by this book. Why? Because it's not the same freakin book. From the second paragraph on page 8, you can see clearly that Bulat's book is a secondary source in all characteristics. Sign yourself for once. P. S. Your unfamiliarity with Croatian or other foreign languages, and your claims to be able to read something, and understanding it wrongly, leads to some unnecessary problems. That can be a pain in the ass sometimes. What can you do. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You are correct so I just read the entire preface and it is filled with Bishop Peric's biased opinions. Again:

(1) Bulat is not independent being a member of the Episcopal Commission for the investigation of Events in Medjugorje and was completely involved. On top of that it was published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar. This source is a primary source. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also Slp1 said the same thing - it is a primary source and she isn't allowing it on the Our Lady of Medjugorje page either.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

She and I disagree then. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)