Talk:Medjugorje/Archive 2

Whole letters or documents

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

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

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

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

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

Use of Links that discredit Medjugorje

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ratzinger?!

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

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

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

Scientific research uncited sentence

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

These researches speculated that the apparitions reported by the visionaries may be a phenomenon that surpasses modern science.

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

Litmus Test: the bishop vs everyone else?

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

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

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

Profits from Medjurgorje (preying on Catholic beliefs)

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

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

http://www.medjugorje.org

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

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

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

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

Profits from Pilgrimages

• Profit per pilgrim: $1000

• Number of Pilgrims per week: 28

• Number of Pilgrimages per year: 15

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

Profits from Speaking Engagements at Catholic Churches

• Fees per Speaking Engagement: $10,000

• Number of Speaking Engagements in a Year: 24

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

That’s a total of $660,000.

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

Estimate Detail

Profits from Pilgrimages

Prayer Experience Pilgrimages With Ivan Dragicevic & Family

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

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

Your Prayer Experience Package Includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the additional Tipping that is required:

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

Examples of Buying Airfare in Bulk

http://www.airlineconsolidator.com/

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

Profits from Speaking Engagements at Catholic Churches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

216.105.151.206 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Coatrack

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

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

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

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

131.111.8.104 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

didn't this article used to be longer?

I remember this article being longer. What happened to it, and should a revision be done?--Minimidgy (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of most of the links

As you might have noticed, I removed most of the links on this article. For more information, please see Wikipedia is not a collection of links and Wikipedia:External links. I left the official website and one website about Our Lady messages (I left the latter because it was put seperatly from the others, but if you feel this was unjust, you may remove it as well). Pevernagie (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Shouldn't we use the original spelling of names (e.g. Pavlović instead of Pavlovic)?

dnik ► 11:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

External links need review

Most of the links listed under "External Links" do not meet the criteria to be listed, as described in WP:EL:

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Most of the links are sites that promote the alleged apparition from a favorable POV. Some are just blogs. --Chonak (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have organized the list to at least label links according to the POV expressed. I dropped four links from the list because the respective sites were commercial, redundant, or infected with malware. -- Chonak (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through each one of them individually, and all, with the exception of one, violates WP:EL. As such, I have removed them. We need to monitor this closely as there are many personal fansites and blogs trying to promote themselves and their agendas here. – SMasters (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• A possible Conflict of interest? Anonymous user 12.171.75.134 (located at "Caritas of Birmingham" in Birmingham, Alabama) has edited the article to promote its own web site in the External Links, after the item was removed. The site is a fansite/blog that adds little information value to the External Links list, so according to the criteria in WP:EL, I rm'd it again. -- Chonak (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed the "Medjugorje Directory" link. The site has no content, only a list of links. That's not what the "External Links" section is for. --Chonak (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A 7–5 split on the "vote" is not a convincing margin when the oppose votes are supported by sources demonstrating that the current spelling is a common one, and even comments in support admit that the name can be spelled both ways. Arguments along the lines of "it is also written the other way" are stronger when the other way is the common way. I do recommend that, in the interests of balance and in the spirit of Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names, the other way remains listed in the prime position in the lead and infobox so that each spelling is given due prominence at the start of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Medjugorje → Međugorje –

• I was told in my user talk page that there is dispute somewhere about this move. Relisted again as the discussion still continues. —Darkwind (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - There is no hint on the Talk of the article of any "dispute", only a unilateral undiscussed move (to the old "dj" spelling) in August 2011. The letter đ has been used for digraph "dj" since 1880. Yes some of the religious sources in the article related to the vision use the pre-1880 spelling, but I have now added Lonely Planet 2010 and Frommers 2009 which spell Bosnian towns the way en.wp does... accurately. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support; more accurate spelling. bobrayner (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. "dj" for "đ" is an acceptable, widely used, accurate, and current variant for that phoneme in Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian phoneme in English. (Clarification suggested on my talkpage by In ictu oculi.) Many sources that otherwise employ diacritics often do not use "đ", both in general (see here), and specifically with Medjugorje (see here) (Medjugorje, but Dragićević, Čolo, etc.). When both variants are acceptable, but one is vastly more widely used in English-language sources, WP policy says follow the sources. Dohn joe (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Dohn Joe, sorry but you should really have discussed this on the Talk page before your move, you must have known that this was a controversial move. Why didn't you put in a RM?

As for WP policy WP:RS does not say "follow the sources," since if we did that we'd be mindlessly replicating US Today and the Daily Mirror, WP:RS says "follow the best such sources", according to WP:RS.

I cannot open your link to The Columbia Guide to the Literatures of Eastern Europe Since 1945. What is it supposed to prove? (Why would Međugorje even be mentioned in such a book?) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In ictu - perhaps an RM would have been a good idea, but I did not think it would be that controversial. As I said in my original edit summary, the sources used in the article widely (perhaps universally? I don't recall) used "Medjugorje". And the fact that 15 months and dozens of edits from new and experienced editors went by without objection would seem to show that it at least was not unreasonable for me to think so.

As for WP policy, I was thinking of WP:AT, which says "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". The dominant English-language usage is clearly "Medjugorje".

Sorry you couldn't open the link - try searching for it in Google Books. The quote is "With literatures in languages that employ the Latin alphabet, names and titles of works are given as they appear in the original; that is, all diacritics are faithfully preserved, with the exception of the Serbo-Croatian "đ", which I transliterate as "dj"". The point being that even reliable sources that otherwise use diacritics do not always do so with "đ" - it gets special treatment.

For more reliable sources that use "Medjugorje" while using other diacritics, see:

• Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 10, p.155
• MEDJUGORJE'S EFFECT'S: A HISTORY OF LOCAL, STATE AND CHURCH RESPONSE TO THE MEDJUGORJE PHENOMENON
• TOMORROW PEOPLE, WHERE IS YOUR PAST? Mapping of post-war national identities in new Yugoslav states
• and many more. Dohn joe (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dohn Joe,

I restored [ Gaj's Latin alphabet |old spelling] pipelink in lede. Ledes should reflect reality, there's no question that Medjugorje is an old spelling not an alternative spelling. This is Bosnia remember, not Serbia. Even in Serbia, dj is barely used today.

Surprised by Segel, the Columbia book's decision to follow the old "dj" and spell Đuro Daničić as "Djuro Daničić" (redlink) - that is very antiquated and unusual, almost unique in an academic text, though you would occasionally see that sort of thing in sources coming out of Tito's Yugoslavia, since the then dominant Serbian group did not consistently use "đ" as Croats (ie Bosnia's Catholics) do.

Back to this town. Theres' no question about how the town is normally spelled in the local language: bs.wp Međugorje je jedno od najpoznatijih katoličkih svetišta u svijetu, ..., and in all other place names en.wp is consistent with use of đ, and consistent with all other French/Polish/etc. European small-medium sized towns on en.wp.

If we do make this town follow sources about the vision, "Medjugorje," which is basically what we'd be doing, then we'll need to add a new section for "Bosnia" to English exonym since currently Bosnia doesn't have any exonyms. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In ictu - thanks for the dialogue. I tried reworking the "dj" vs. "đ" issue into a footnote - let me know what you think. The issue I think is that while "dj" may be an old spelling in Serbo-Croatian, it's still very much used in English (and other languages that don't use "đ"), as I showed with the refs I added.

As to the exonym issue, I think it may be applicable here. While this may be a small to medium-sized European town, which normally would take native diacritics, this particular town is much more notable than most, and precisely because of the visions and subsequent development into one of the world's largest Roman Catholic pilgrimage centers. The fact that scholarly sources often use "Medjugorje" while using other Serbo-Croatian diacritics would seem to indicate that the town has been exonym-ized. And either way, I'll add Bosnia to the exonym article - Bosnia and Herzegovina being an exonym itself! Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dohn, as to the first issue, the lede, on second thoughts I reverted myself and let your edit stand. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, from my perspective I think that whateve the intention of the NOTE1 the result is misleading in that it should clearly indicate [ Gaj's Latin alphabet |old spelling] by pipelink. Why obscure it? If you wanted to edit lede as Međugorje, (old spelling and many English sources Medjugorje), I suppose that would be more even. But as it stands at the moment it is misleading readers who don't click the tiny NOTE1 into believing that the old spelling is still used today in Bosnia, which it isn't.

The exonym is another issue. I have a slight concern about the religious WP:POV angle, a true English exonym doesn't divide into a Lonelyplanetonym (the endonym) and a Christianonym (an exonym). However, it may be unavoidable to note in English exonym that this does appear to be the one Bosnian town widely anachronistically spelled in English sources.

No further comment for the time being. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In ictu - my thinking in using the footnote was to avoid cluttering the lead with details that most people won't care about. Personally, I'd remove all the refs that you and I added, and leave a single "Note 1", which would likely attract more attention by itself. Of course, if we treat this as an exonym, probably the simplest way to deal with the Bosnian vs. English issue is to start the lead: "Medjugorje (Serbo-Croatian pronunciation: [medʑuɡoːrje]; Bosnian and Croatian: Međugorje) is a town...", which would make it clear that one version is English and one is Bosnian/Croatian. This would match Bosnia and Herzegovina and other exonym articles. What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I said no further comment. And I already said that a true English exonym doesn't divide into a Lonelyplanetonym (the endonym) and a Christianonym (an exonym). Beyond that, happy to wait for what JoyShallot and other project members will say... Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is shaping up to be yet another bun-fight between those who think the English WP should be in English, and those who want their national particularities to be respected.

But our guidelines are clear enough; those on Titles, Naming conventions and Modified letters all say we should follow English usage; if "Međugorje" (with the "đ") is the usual way of writing this in English, we use it; if not, not.

And a google search [1] is also clear; of the 6,950,000 results for "Međugorje" (with the đ), the vast majority of results in English are spelled "Medjugorje" (dj), while those for "Međugorje" are predominantly Croatian. Also, searching for "Our Lady of Međugorje" [2] (which, I’d hazard a guess, is the main reason this place is known at all in the English-speaking world) the first dozen pages have only “Medjugorje” as the spelling.

The only exceptions to this pattern are all WP pages, which raises another issue: WP:NEO warns against neologisms that are put here in order to use WP as a means to increase usage of a term. As with new words, so with new spellings; a situation where WP is the only source of a usage in English must be frowned upon. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a misreading of WP:NEO and in any case Lonely Planet and other English sources support the correct spelling. The numerical predominance of low quality religious pilgrimage materials with the old -dj- might apply to Our Lady of Međugorje (not undiscussed-moved, still at correct spelling) but wouldn't to the town Međugorje which predates the vision. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia doesn't usually strip diacritics from placenames (cf. others in the List of populated places in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Although the arguments above for "Medjugorje" as an exonym may have some merit, such usage does not show up on print maps where other exonyms are in use. —  AjaxSmack  23:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think saying "WP doesn't usually strip diacritics from placenames" is somewhat begging the question. The debate about whether to use diacritcs and modified letters or not has been festering on for years, with no conclusion in sight. There is no enthusiasm generally for changing the guidelines on following English usage, and if there is a plethora of placenames that use local rather than English spelling it is a tribute to those who create such pages and/or those who fight tooth and nail to move/keep from moving such placenames at RMs, than anything else. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have always supported using English placenames from Cracow to Elsinore to Saragossa to Brunswick. "Medjugorje" doesn't seem to be an English name but a technical workaround for a problem that no longer exists. —  AjaxSmack  02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet a google search would suggest that "Medjugorje" (for whatever reason) is the English name for the place. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Moonraker, sorry but you seem to be badly out of touch. UserAjaxSmack's comment "WP doesn't usually strip diacritics from placenames" is in fact an understatement. If you do not think UserAjaxSmack's comment is fact, then please provide one other European Latin-alphabet placename article apart from this undiscussed move which has stripped diacritics. On en.wp 100% of Balkan place names with "đ" use "đ" as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) (or similar for Bosnian which is written in Latin anyway). As evidence of CONSISTENCY, when this article was unilaterally moved without discussion the related articles Our Lady of Međugorje and Status of Međugorje were left at the correct spelling in quality English sources such as Lonely Planet. The "debate" about whether to use diacritics and modified letters for Eastern European place names concluded years ago, despite the activity of a small number of editors against consensus. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK; but what I said was, the statement is begging the question.

I’m not disputing that there are a vast number of articles here with diacritcs and modified letters in them; what I am saying is the guidelines we have don’t support that state of affairs. You might well say the debate is concluded, "despite the activity of a small number of editors against consensus"; but it could equally be said the debate is ongoing (like here, for example), driven by he activity of a small number of editors working against guidelines. If the consensus is that clear maybe the guidelines we have should be changed and then there wont be anything to argue about.

I hadn’t seen WP:CYR before but (off the top of my head) it says there that they are “not a recommendation” , and that the page merely “documents the current usage”. And it does say in a couple of places “If a name or word has a conventional English spelling, that is used” which is surely the situation here. So how does that help you? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Moonraker12, you actually were disputing it, but in any case that wasn't the question - you were asked to provide one other European Latin-alphabet placename article apart from this undiscussed move which has stripped diacritics. As for the guideline you need to look back in the edit history to find earlier edits which reflected the consensus of the 1000s of editors who create and edit geo articles is that we do not "anglicize" European towns. The only exception is this one, which was an undiscussed move setting it at odds with Our Lady of Međugorje and Status of Međugorje. As to the argument below, "if we use the "đ", to the 99% of the world's population who don’t know Serbo Croat it will look like a "d""... well surely you'd agree that it won't, it will look like a crossed d, which is what it is. So how or why is that a problem? Apply the same argument to Llŷn Peninsula, or indeed an article I note you created, List of Jäger units, not "Jaeger units". Bosnian đ is no more problematic than Welsh Llŷn, German Jäger, or indeed Charlotte Brontë. Why should this article be the 1x European place name exception on the whole of en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In ictu - I do wish that you would restrain your hyperbole. If you'd like 1x example, go to English exonyms, where you'll find the following European examples: Aragon, Pyrenees, Istanbul, Zurich. Outside of Europe, you'll find articles on Mexico, Peru, Hanoi, Mekong. Those are just articles where the only difference in orthography is the lack of a diacritical mark. So it happens all the time. And an even more apt comparison is to placenames that replace one grapheme with another. See Azores (not Açores), Ghent (not Gent), Hanover (not Hannover). Or even Herzegovina (not Hercegovina). And once again, "đ" often gets special treatment - even here on WP, where you'll find articles on Novak Djokovic and Nebojsa Djordjevic. It's not at all unusual for WP articles to show the most common English orthographic version of a placename where one exists. Dohn joe (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dohn, those examples show it isn't hyperbole. The point is that those are real exonyms, those are documented, sourced, accepted, agreed, consistent and listed in grammar and geography books. Frommers, EU, Lonely Planet and pilgrimage websites don't disagree.

This 1x however is an undiscussed move of a European town from the accurate spelling to an approximation found in low quality pilgrimage pdfs while leaving Our Lady of Međugorje and Status of Međugorje spelled in Bosnian.

Do you know of any other 1x European town on en.wp which has been moved in this manner? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Strawmen aside, I don't see how you can make the "low quality pilgrimage pdfs" claim when I've already shown you multiple examples of quality, reliable sources that use "Medjugorje" while using other diacritics. Do you not recall those examples above? And this is leaving aside the hundreds of other reliable sources that use "Medjugorje" in English (see Princeton University Press, American Geographical Society of New York, The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research, Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism, ad nauseum). Dohn joe (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your last point is a bit disingenuous; there are shoals of articles, on all kinds of subjects, that have been moved without discussion from an English spelling to a native spelling, and have, often, been maintained there through move wars and/or bitter, drawn-out RM arguments. Citing success in this area is an argument of might over right more than anything else. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)In ictu: Now we seem to be arguing about what you think I said as compared to what I think I said. I took the statement “ WP doesn’t usually strip diacritics from placenames” to carry the implied premise that using anglicized spelling (ie without diacritics) was wrong per se, and that we should not do so in this case either. But on reflection I can see that you might think I meant something different. What I am saying, though, is that just because it is so doesn’t mean it ought to be so. The articles concerned may meet the requirements of the guidelines, or they may have been created (or moved) in spite of them: The fact that they exist doesn’t prove anything much in this situation.

And I don’t see that I need to provide any examples of anything: your argument is that we should use the local spelling for consistency (which isn’t a naming convention guideline AFAIK), while mine is we should use the spelling used in English language sources, per WP:TITLE (which is). We will presumably see which position carries the most weight.

Your comment “As for the guideline, look at the consensus” it’s a non sequiter; if editors (1000’s? really?) are ignoring the guidelines we have, it doesn’t invalidate the guidelines themselves; if the consensus really is that clear, then you consenting editors should have the guidelines changed, and that’ll be an end to it.

And what you can be sure of is that I don’t agree that people who are unfamiliar with a crossed d would easily distinguish it from a standard d, or would know what it signifies even if they did notice; I didn’t, before I joined this conversation (though I know there’s one in Vietnamese, and in Icelandic) and I’m sure I’m not alone.

As for Llŷn, and the Jäger list (that’s going back a bit!) both those spellings occur in English; the usage is ambiguous, so either would be OK. And I used Jäger instead of Jaeger for internal consistency (for which we do have a guideline). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Moonraker 12, so what's the difference? Međugorje is used in non-religious sources in English, just as Llŷn Penisula and Jäger list can also be found in better quality English print sources. And yes WP:CONSISTENCY is a guideline, so why do you want to apply WP:CONSISTENCY to Jäger list, but want to move Međugorje → 1881 spelling while leaving all other medium sized European towns on en.wp spelled accurately according to Lonely Planet, Frommers and EU sources but leave Our Lady of Međugorje and Status of Međugorje which is the subject of these religious pdfs spelled accurately? So by WP:CONSISTENCY shouldn't you support keeping this 1x article consistent with the naming conventions such as WP:CYR? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that the guideline linked is WP:MOS#Consistency within articles; the title says it all. Whereas WP:CYR isn’t a guideline, or even a recommendation (as has been said before…). Moonraker12 (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Break

• Support for the sake of consistency and precision. <dj> could also stand for the Cyrillic "дј", while <đ> is unambiguously the Cyrillic "ђ" (though no one will be mislead if they know basic Serbo-Croatian). --Theurgist (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the concern should be not misleading those who don’t have a basic knowledge of Serbo-Croat. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. With a đ, no one will be mislead, no matter how little Serbo-Croat they know (or don't know). That's just the (contemporary) accurate spelling. And with a dj, you have to know some Serbo-Croat in order to figure out that it actually is đ. --Theurgist (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There’s no “exactly” about it. If we use the "đ", to the 99% of the world's population who don’t know Serbo Croat it will look like a "d" or be some unknown modified letter; using the "dj" transliteration at least gives an approximation of the way it’s pronounced. Which is why it’s done that way in English. And anyone who wants to know the Serbo-Croat spelling would have it there in the lead sentence (Serbo-Croat: Međugorje), as per the guideline. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we're not transcribing the place name, or otherwise we'd have to respell Podgorica as "Podgoritsa", Milošević as "Miloshevich", Karadžić as "Karajich" and so on. Međugorje itself would end up as "Me(d)jugorye". Since the late 19th century, "đ" is the correct and standard way of representing that phoneme, and not just a "d" but a "dj" is used to substitute the modified character "đ" when the latter is unavailable or undesired. That that the "dj" in Medjugorje is akin to the "dj" in English adjust is pure coincidence.

pronunciation, IPA	dʑ	dj
Cyrillic	ђ	дј
Latin	đ	dj
circumventing modified characters	dj	dj

Why make it ambiguous and misleading when there's nothing to prevent us from doing otherwise? --Theurgist (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As per Theurgist, worth noting that Bosnian does actually have some real "Dj" place names such as bs:Djevičanska ostrva where the pronunciation really is IPA "dj" not "dʑ". In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Theurgist: I’m pretty sure we use Podgorica as a title because the majority of English language sources use it; if they used another spelling we should use that. And yes, if there are two spellings in common use in English it can be ambiguous; but that isn’t the case here, is it? In this case pretty much all the English sources (except WP!) use “Medjugorje”. What would be misleading would be to tuck the article away at a spelling where no-one (except, presumably, Croats and Bosniaks) would look for it. And what prevents us from doing otherwise? That would be are our guidelines. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Still, I don't think "Medjugorje" is as assimilated in the English language as Montreal, Istanbul and Riga are. --Theurgist (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• The argument for dj needs to be made in more encyclopedic terms. Yes, it may help pronunciation a wee bit, but what about the last j that simply isn't going to be pronounced correctly by the typical English speaker? Either we strive for pronouncability, or we strive for precision - in this case trying to do both makes the title inconsistent for little benefit. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the argument for the "dj" is that in this case it is the English spelling, which (as you know) is highly idiosyncratic. If you are looking for consistency and precision you are in the wrong language. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Moonraker12, as before please see WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made" "best such sources". You have yet to provide a 1x source showing all other Bosnian towns with "đ" and this one spelled distinctly. As before quality English language sources (such as Lonely Planet and Frommers) do have consistency and precision, and the plethora of religious/pilgrimage sources mentioning the vision are not the benchmark of what constitutes the English language. Compare European Union Police Mission reports "Bankers from Banja Luka brutally beaten in Međugorje" which cover Bosnia more broadly than focussing on just pilgrimage sites. Is this Bosnian town the 1x exception in EU English reports? Does a special exonym status exist as for Munich, or are pilgrimage pdfs written with a lower MOS than European Union Police Mission reports? This is the question, and you still haven't answered it. Anyone can expect more low MOS sources for a populist subject, but if we went by those sort of counts en.wp would have a guideline "WP:ignore quality sources and prefer tabloid errors for foreign sports players and pop stars" We have no such practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Now we are repeating ourselves. You have already been given examples of other European place-names in English,[3] and examples of non-religious sources giving Medjugorje as a spelling.[4]. And we are also back to implicit assumptions again: “The one exception”? “Sources that use 'Medjugorje' are exclusively religious”? “Religious sources cannot be used to determine English usage”? “local spelling = accurate spelling”? “Religious/pilgrimage websites, documents = poor quality sources”? “Sources that use 'Međugorje' = better quality”? All of these assertions would need proving before they have any validity. As for "sources reliable for the statement made", simple numbers in Google searches do have some value, as you well know. What a google search can do is "identify the names for things", and "confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is". In this case "Medjugorje" is roughly 50 times more popular in English than the local spelling. It isn’t brain surgery...Moonraker12 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can cite an English dictionary that can demonstrate that "Medjugorje" somehow became an English word, as opposed to a near-verbatim import of a Croatian word, you only have WP:COMMONNAME in support of the claim it's "the English spelling". Yet, the common name policy doesn't invalidate WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which you should really look at with regard to your claims about consistency and precision. If nobody else is willing to provide a better argument for the "dj", I support the move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How about Britannica? The Kids online version uses all sorts of diacritics - "Kraków", "François Mitterrand", "Søren Kierkegaard"; but leaves them out in others - "Istanbul", "Mexico", and "Medjugorje". Is that at all persuasive of modern English usage by an authoritative reference? Dohn joe (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, given that your examples of Mexico and Istanbul are well-known toponyms that have become English exonyms without é or İ. In those cases, one doesn't really have to invoke the common name policy - the "use English" policy is sufficient, as in the case of Munich or Rome. OTOH Međugorje is a small village in Herzegovina that has nowhere near the English-speaking exposure as those two. It's a legitimate argument that the Marian apparitions have "put it on the world map" and that the exonym was created. I disagree with that assertion until some convincing evidence is shown that trumps the other naming criteria. Britannica Kids is going in that direction, but I'm not convinced because it's a tertiary source after all and this might as well be treated as a style issue there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Can I ask, though - if you're troubled by the tertiary source, what about the academic secondary sources I've shown that use "Medjugorje" while using other Serbo-Croatian diacritics? They're posted elsewhere on this page, but let me know if you'd like me to show you a few examples. Dohn joe (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This ngram suggests that "Medjugorje" is the common name by an overwhelming margin. I get 1,120 post-1990 English language GBook hits for "Međugorje", 54,100 for "Medjugorje". Kauffner (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Both Medjugorje and Međugorje are used in modern English, though the dj form probably results from the inability of English keyboards and typesetters in the past to distinguish between đ and ð, a problem that has only been rectified within the last few years, and a problem we do not suffer from on Wikipedia. The argument that we should use dj so that people know how to pronounce the word is nonsense: the pronunciation guide is normally given in the first line of an article, as in this article, and is often accompanied by a sound file. The title is not the place for a pronunciation guide. As In ictu oculi has pointed out, we do not use simple Google hit numbers, but are required to rely on reputable sources, which seem to overwhelmingly favour Međugorje. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• So Lonely Planet and Frommers, the travel guides IIO cites, are more "reputable" than other sources? This is not what our guidelines say: "When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage." (WP:PLACE) Kauffner (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, I think you know full well that EU Policing Report, Lonely Planet and Frommers etc. are books not roadmaps and give "Munich" and "Nuremburg" just as they give Međimurje, Međulužje and Međugorje. The contrast here is not roadmaps vs books, but a large number of low quality pilgrimage websites and books that fail WP:IRS.

So Lonely Planet and Frommer's are not guidebooks? They have a style designed to correspond to local signage in order to assist the traveler. So they obviously aren't the best source for the English-language common name. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

yellow highlighting added for visibility In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Skinsmoke: Can you give some examples of these reliable sources that “overwhelmingly favour” the local spelling? In a search on Google Books for "Međugorje" only the first couple of dozen actually use that spelling; after that they use the anglicized spelling fairly exclusively. It doesn’t compare well to the 77,000 results for the anglicized spelling. And none of the British media seem to use it: The BBC doesn't, the broadsheets don't, though they all have results for "Medjugorje". And the reason why is irrelevant to determining COMMON NAME, and TITLE; what is relevant is that is that anclicized spelling is preferred over local spelling by a factor of 50. Interestingly, this story in the Independent refers to Marin Cilic and Goran Ivanisevic without diacritics, but has no trouble with “protégé”. Make of it what you will... Moonraker12 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Using the term "anglicized" to describe the difference between "Međugorje" and "Medjugorje" is hardly accurate; if it was an actual anglicization, we'd be talking about "Mejugorye" or something like that. Rather, this is a fairly typical diacritics problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Another break

• One month later - after 32 days 7 support restoring, 3 oppose restoring. This undiscussed move went against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Serbian let alone consensus of WP BOSNIA and should be restored to consistency with all other Balkan geo articles. If someone wants to put in a RM for Our Lady of Međugorje then maybe it'd be more appropriate to rely on religious sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  Each of those statements is demonstrably not true. There are currently 6 supports (the nominator did not support, but simply listed this pro forma). WP:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Serbian does not apply, as this name is not natively in Cyrillic. There is no such thing as WP:BOSNIA, and thus no undefined "consensus" that this article is violating. And this article is consistent with other Balkan geography articles. Where there is a form that is widely used in English, such as with Bosnia and Herzegovina itself, we use it.

  Finally, and most troubling, In ictu and others continue to claim that only "religious sources" use "Medjugorje", in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary. I don't see how we can have an honest debate - or how that debate can be evaluated - until the opposers acknowledge that plenty of reliable English-language sources do in fact use "Medjugorje". Dohn joe (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DohnJoe, there is no call for emotive language like "demonstrably not true" or "[dis]honest." Please consider:

(1) I was assuming that nominator having already undone your undiscussed move until you insisted on it standing, meant the nominator supported his own move. If that's not the case that is unusual but then yes 6 vs 3, but you do not get to use language like "demonstrably not true" or "[dis]honest". Do you really think that this language is suitable?

(2) WP:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Serbian does apply, as this name, like all in the former Yugoslavia, exist both in Gaj's Latin and Cyrillic.

(3) It is your own assumption that I meant WP BOSNIA as a shortcut "WP:BOSNIA", I was referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina which does exist, and does have consensus standards in line with the name of this article before you moved it, without, it should be said, even noting on Talk Page. So really does your jumping to this conclusion justify your "demonstrably not true" or "[dis]honest" language?

(4) the evidence has already been presented that these "Medjugorje" references are predominantly post the apparation of the Virgin in 1981, and out of line with secular, municipal, administrative etc. usage for towns in Bosnia as a whole. We do not get secular sources saying "Međuvođe, Međulužje, Međuvršje..." and then suddenly switch "...and Medjugorje." The prevalence of Google hits for the pre-1880 spelling is entirely a function of the Virgin having appeared in 1981 in Međugorje, and not Međulužje, Međuvršje or the 100x other Među- Međi- geo articles on en.wp. All these searches above are doing are reflecting the typographic limitations of sources discussing the religious aspect, not how a reliable consistent geographical source - like the EU or Frommers - consistently treats this name the same as any other. If you have a reliable non-religious source that presents a sentence "Međuvođe, Međulužje, Međuvršje..." and then suddenly switches "...and Medjugorje." please present it. In the meantime I am not going to indulge in language like "demonstrably not true" or "[dis]honest" regarding a difference in perspective and methodology. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the frustrating part. I have repeatedly shown multiple reliable, academic and reference sources that use "Medjugorje" while freely using other Serbo-Croatian diacritics. To repeat - again - please see Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 10, p.155; MEDJUGORJE'S EFFECT'S: A HISTORY OF LOCAL, STATE AND CHURCH RESPONSE TO THE MEDJUGORJE PHENOMENON; TOMORROW PEOPLE, WHERE IS YOUR PAST? Mapping of post-war national identities in new Yugoslav states; and Britannica. These are not "low-quality pilgrimage pdfs" or "religious sources". And yet that seems to be the basis of many of the oppose !votes - that only low-quality sources use "Medjugorje". When the reality is that hundreds of academic sources use "Medjugorje" - including many with no relevant typographic limitations. Dohn joe (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In ictu: Are you still going on about this? Now we really are going round in circles.

First off, 6 (or 7) for and 3 against is simply a majority, not a consensus (not even a local one); consensus is determined by “the quality of the arguments given...as viewed through the lens of WP policy”, something you have signally failed to do. Just about all the policies we have on the subject (WP:TITLE, WP:ENGLISH, WP:DIACRITIC, etc) say we should follow English usage when writing articles and choosing titles, and just about every measure we use to determine this (media, books, sources, google searches, etc) shows "Medjugorje" to be the spelling in common English usage (and by a ratio of about 50 to one!). In reply you have made vague references to WP:CYR (which isn’t even a recommendation, let alone a guideline) and to the #Serbian sub-section there (which is part of a section clearly labelled “when no commonly accepted form exists in English”); and also a cryptic reference to WP:BiH which makes no recommendation about consistently using local spelling either, (and would be in breach of general guidelines if it did). This has been pointed out before; how is it not “misleading” to keep referring to them as if they were guidelines?

As for your constant refrain that the support for this spelling rests on religious sources which (you claim) are "inferior" to secular sources, you have been given half a dozen secular uses of "Medjugorje" (which compares well to the three sources you persistently trot out for the local spelling): And in any case begs the question (as has been said before); why is a British (or Irish, or American, etc) religious source, written in English by English-speakers, a less reliable guide to English language usage than, say, an EU translation of a (presumably) Bosnian document, or a travel guide (where local spellings would be expected)?

As these claims of yours have been repeatedly demonstrated as being untrue, what other phrase than “demonstrably untrue” would you prefer? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeat: if you have a WP:RS compliant non-religious source that presents a sentence "Međuvođe, Međulužje, Međuvršje..." and then suddenly switches "...and Medjugorje." then please present it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Relevance?? What on earth would that prove? That the English spelling isn’t the same as the Serbo-Croat one? We already know that!

OTOH if you have any evidence that your spelling is the one in general and widespread use in English, or know of a genuine WP policy that requires us to use a local spelling in preference to a commonly-used English one, you need to present that. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Moonraker,

Could you perhaps please take it down a notch.

Thanks.

A source which gave "Međuvođe, Međulužje, Međuvršje... Medjugorje." would prove that Medjugorje is really in use in WP:RS "the best such sources" which are WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made"

Just as

"Göttingen, Münster, ...Munich" per WP:PLACE

It's a simple and harmless request.

In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Take it down a a notch? Why? Do you think I’m annoyed?

You don’t accept usage as a way of determining English language usage.

You don’t accept religious sources, presumably because they are religious.

You don’t accept (or are choosing to ignore) secular sources provided for you.

You don’t accept that, if "the statement being made" is merely the commonest English usage, then 50,000+ sources preferring one spelling compared to a couple of dozen using something else is reliable enough.

And you refuse toto justify any of this except to make vague references to policies we have, or make misleading ones to other WP resources that aren't.

What you are now demanding (for no clear reason; there nothing at WP:PLACE about it) is a particular source that not only gives "Medjugorje" in its English spelling but also mentions three other Bosnian villages that have no notability in English whatsoever (check it out).

Its hardly a simple and harmless request; Why would I be anything but annoyed?

As it turns out, the only source that has all four in the form you want is the English WP, so now we’re back to the beginning of the circle again. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think any of those supporting the move have successfully countered Dohn joe's argument that "Medjugorje" is by far the most common version in English sources, including high quality sources. Per WP:COMMON, we should go with the current version.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cúchullain, it's an old one of course, but as usual with these "including high quality sources" for what purpose? What should be the definition of "high quality" here? What is a high quality source for the spelling of Noël Coward for example? Is a source that says "Charlotte Bronte" a high quality source for the spelling of Noël Coward? It's the same question. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

High quality, often university-published sources discussing the town, such as this book from the Oxford UP, which uses diacritics in other names but not this one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cúchullain.

Yes, actually that is a good illustration of what I mean. I think that source has been mentioned before, at least I've looked at it before, and surprisingly it doesn't pass the Charlotte Brontë-benchmark for Noël Coward, ë for ë test. Or in this case the đ-benchmark for đ test. In Perica's Balkan idols (OUP, 2002) đ and "dj" have been merged as the old Gaj's alphabet. To confirm this note that the book spells Franjo Tuđman as "Franjo Tudjman." Note also P276 and P288 twice cite a newspaper article Deset godina kasnije, Novo čudo u Međugorju 1991 as "čudo u Medjugorju."

FWIW this appears to be a common OUP problem, it isn't just Perica's Balkan idols which doesn't distinguish "đ" and "dj", Todorova's Imagining the Balkans (OUP 2009, doesn't mention Međugorje) also has a complete old-Gaj's alphabet set, missing đ and also "dj". On occasions where Todorova tries to insert đ OUP's software picks up Icelandic eth ð instead, so "the Sarajevan daily Osloboðenje published.." P53 instead of Oslobođenje.

This is why I'm asking for a source that uses đ for other towns/names to establish if Međugorje is really different, or if it just appears in a lot of sources with no đ. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How's this: Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia Herzegovina. See p. 143 "Karađorđević" and compare with p. 209 "Medjugorje". Is that what you've been waiting for? Dohn joe (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes.

Ideally you should have presented that source on the Talk page on August 2011 before making an undiscussed move.

But it is good to see, finally, 1x source which passes WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made". Yes College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003. treat this as an exonym. How many reliable sources is our pool now? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In ictu - please stop moving the goalposts. You asked for 1x, I provided 1x. If you're still not satisfied, here's 1x more: Politics of Ethnic Cleansing. "Medjugorje" p. 9, "Karađorđević" p. 39. Please let me know how many x you require. Dohn joe (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a minute, In ictu; who are you trying to kid?

“1x source”? “how many reliable sources in our pool now?”? There are over 50,000 sources here which you still haven’t explained how, as English language sources, they are unreliable for "the statement being made" (ie what name is commonly used in English)

There's nothing at WP:RS about a "Charlotte Bronte benchmark", there's nothing there about sources like OUP being unreliable (!) because they don’t spell Franjo Tudjman's name the way you'd like it spelt (guess what: no-one in the English-speaking world does, except the English WP, of course)

I’m sure you’ve had a lot of fun finding smaller and smaller hoops for people to jump though, but unless have some reasonable answers to the questions you’ve repeatedly been asked, I’d say it was time for you to drop the stick. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Moonraker

You were asked to please take it down a notch.

This does not constitute taking it down a notch:

"who are you trying to kid?" = ad hominem

"I’m sure you’ve had a lot of fun" = ad hominem

"the way you'd like it spelt" = ad hominem

However, as asked, your requested explanation is below.

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In ictu I couldn't care less about the "Charlotte Brontë-benchmark" or whether sources use the "đ" in other names. I care about how an English speaker is going to encounter this name in English sources. It would appear that, overwhelmingly, it's Medjugorje in the best available sources for the topic, including in sources that use other diacritics, and even in some sources that do use the đ otherwise. Open and shut as far as I'm concerned.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay,

by way of explanation:

(1) The benchmarking to the methodology to Charlotte Brontë is to take out the "foreign" issue.

(2) I remain of the opinion that sources which don't have "ë" in the font set are not WP:RS "the best such sources" or WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made" re the statement of the spelling of a name with ë.

I hope (1) and (2) above are self-explanatory.

I also remain of the opinion that this was a disruptive undiscussed move pulling this article out of line from all other medium sized European towns, failing a consensus a close should revert to pre-undiscussed move status quo and not uphold the undiscussed move. That is just my opinion. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position, but think you are being too pedantic and pertinacious. You're certainly not helping your own position by responding to every single comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The native form is commonly seen in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As the evidence is very much to the contrary (and has been pointed out previously) perhaps you’d care to give some proof of this “common use in English”? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - per sources provided by Dohn joe. mgeo talk 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More moves

Following the conclusion of the RM discussion (above) I have requested the articles on the apparition and its status within the RC church be moved also, to conform to that outcome. The discussion is here is if anyone wishes to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this what you really mean to say?

""Our Lady of Medjugorje" and "Our Lady Queen of Peace" are the titles given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by those who believe that she has been appearing since 24 June 1981 to six children in Medjugorje." In normal English, that means that the visions are going on at the present day. Is that what you mean? PiCo (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. The visions are still being reported by certain of the original children (now grown, obviously). Dohn joe (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(New thread)

(this is a new thread, so I’ve put it in a new section, per WP:TALK. Do keep up! I’ve also fixed the indents, per TALK. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC))

Moonraker, please note closing comment above "I do recommend that, in the interests of balance and in the spirit of Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names, the other way remains listed in the prime position in the lead and infobox so that each spelling is given due prominence at the start of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)" - as the only one of 50,000 (1972 number former Yugoslavia) populated places where an en.wp article was moved to the old alphabet the "due prominence at the start of the article" is relevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I’ve dealt with the substantive issue below, but as far as the rest of this; more misrepresentation? The page wasn’t "moved to the old alphabet spelling", it was moved to the common spelling in English. How that relates to the Croatian alphabet is neither here nor there. And nor is the implication that we should therefore be using the new alphabet. That may be a requirement on the Croatian WP, but it certainly isn’t one here.

As for the oft-quoted "50,000 populated places in Bosnia", you may wish to comment here. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

and this? Come on, this is ridiculous, WP:COMMONNAME relates to Wikipedia:Article titles not article text. All Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina articles use Bosnian language spelling, cf WP:SERBIANNAMES. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And I never mentioned WP:COMMONNAME, I referred to the requirement that the spelling in the text should match the title. What is ridiculous is trying to justify the use of a Croatian spelling by referring to a guideline on SERBIAN. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croat is Croatian is Bosnian is Serbian. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? You’re sure about that? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling refs

Yesterday I removed the refs at the top of the article, with the following edit summary: removing refs whose only purpose was to show that both spellings are found in English texts; unnecessary and cluttering. In ictu reverted, with this edit summary: not the time to remove. Without more explanation, that is not a substantive reason to revert. The refs cited do not discuss the spelling of the town, or why the refs used a particular spelling, so they really add almost nothing to the understanding of the topic. All they do is show that both spellings are found in reputable English-language sources. Since this is not in dispute, I removed them, for the reason I gave - the refs are not necessary, and clutter up the opening sentence. Does anyone agree? If not, please justify the retention of those refs. Dohn joe (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

IIO's edit summary was "not the time to remove". I can't see any harm in leaving them until the RM on the related pages is over. Once that happens, hopefully all the controversy will be over and they can be removed. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire, the point being that we cannot link to the article with one hand and delete refs relevant to the reason for linking with the other. When the related RM is over the refs can probably be reduced and shifted down to a name paragraph preserving the relevant sources, I'd do that but am reluctant to touch it now. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I couldn’t see why this isn’t the time to remove them, either; but I can live with Scolaire's suggestion we defer it until the other RM’s are resolved. What I do object to, now, is the balance involved; four sources to support of the Croatian spelling, as opposed to three for the English gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the use of the Croatian spelling in English; the true ratio (as we have seen) is about 50 to 1. If there was just one source attesting to the local spelling in English (as you might expect to find in a travel book, for example) and a couple more for the English, it would still be over-generous. That needs to be resolved now (while the RM is on); either by adjusting the balance, or by adding an explanatory note. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems redundant. Anyone interested in numbers on the RM will click search links already on the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are redundant? So, maybe it’d be OK to edit the Earth article to say "Earth is an oblate spherical (3 refs), or flat (4 refs) body in space" and suggest anybody who wants to query the numbers should read the discussion on the talk page. Or maybe instead we should present viewpoints “in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”, because “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views”. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence

As the recent RM above has established the name of this place in English, and the article title, I changed the lead sentence in line with MOS:LEAD. This was reverted, with the edit summary "undo edit...per RM closing comments and Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names" so I am therefore opening a discussion.
The closing admin’s recommendation ( which I have already queried, here) made reference to alternative names. That would be fair enough if "Međugorje" was an alternative name in English, but in fact it is not. An alternative name would be one which has a similar currency in English, (as for example "Lübeck", "Luebeck" and "Lubeck", which are all used indiscriminately, sometimes www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=L%C3%BCbeck in the same source) there is no such currency here, as has already been discussed. So the guideline to follow should be MOS:LEAD, as we do with other places that have an English name that differs from the local name (eg The Hague, Moscow, Copenhagen, etc).
I raised this with the closing admin, and when I didn’t hear back, I took the bold course and changed it.
The arrangement per MOSLEAD preserves a primary position for the local name (as recommended), and is in line with other pages in a similar position: Would anybody care to comment why we shouldn’t do so in this case? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the closer's recommendation is a reasonable compromise. The article title is at the commonly used English spelling, what's the harm in having the Serbo-Croat spelling before the English one at the beginning? MOSLEAD is no more mandatory than any other policy or guideline. There is ample precedent, for instance the Republic of Ireland article which begins, "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland..." Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire: First of all, I’m entirely unclear why a compromise, however reasonable, is necessary. If we are looking at precedents, there are any number of pages where the lead has been changed after a move; it is the normal course of events. We have (for example) pages on Bosnian towns moved from an English to a local spelling (without discussion, I notice!) and no-one has felt the urgency to offer a compromise on the English spelling in the lead. And far from being a typical example, Ireland/Republic of Ireland is very much a special case, looking at all the discussion/argey-bargey on the subject. How does this case compare to that?

Saying "MOSLEAD isn’t mandatory" is akin to IAR, which as we know isn’t a carte blanche; it is up to the “rule ignorer” to justify the set-aside. So, that is it about this situation which requires us to set the guideline aside? To repeat your question, what harm does it do to follow the relevant guideline? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

IAR is exactly what I was talking about. Saying it isn't "carte blanche" is akin to saying IAR should always be ignored. It shouldn't: it's a policy. Justify the set-aside? I did. You ignored that as well. A compromise isn't "necessary". It's a good thing. I was involved in the ROI "argy-bargy", which is why it came to mind as a compromise that was eventually accepted by all concerned. As IIO pointed out, the convention is also followed on many biographical articles. To turn your question around again, what harm does it do to follow the recommendation of the RM closer? Scolaire (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tto take it from the top; I’m not saying we should ignore IAR (though the irony is appealing) I am pointing out that “while ignoring all rules is alright, it is subtly but importantly different from deliberately breaking them” and that IAR “is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.”

As to your justifying it already, I’m sorry, I appear to have missed it. Do you mean because it was the closing admin’s recommendation? I’ve already queried it with him/her, but we can do it again if you like.

And as for the harm does it do (and here I again find myself in the position of justifying adherence to a clearly written guideline), I have argued (above) that portraying Međugorje as a commonly-used spelling in English is very much a fringe view, however vocally expressed, and the present arrangement gives undue weight to that view. It is not an improvement to let WP be used to validate that position. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"I am pointing out that...", "I’ve already queried it...", "I have argued (above)..." Have you noticed that you're entirely on your own here? Even though this page was linked from the other RM, and a number of people must have looked at it, not one comment has been made in sympathy with your view. And my edit has now been in place for eight days with nobody else querying it and nobody reverting it. I refer you to Wikipedia:EDITCONCENSUS, which says that my edit can be assumed to have consensus.

Putting "Međugorje" at the start is not portraying "Međugorje" as a commonly-used spelling in English. It is simply stating the name of the town, which is not and has never been in dispute. Your contention that it is portraying "Međugorje" as a commonly-used spelling in English is a fringe view, vocally expressed, which is not apparently shared by anybody else on the project. By all means ask DrKiernan for clarification again, but unless he comes down unequivocally on your side, I would advise you to let the matter drop. This discussion is not about improving the article; it is about a personal obsession of yours, which is not healthy for the project or for you. Scolaire (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, what I have noticed is that you and I are the only ones discussing the matter (unless you count “MOSLEAD may actually be wrong” (below) as a cogent argument) and that the discussion is becoming increasingly sterile; which is why I thought some clarification would be helpful. But as that has been delivered now, and we are not swaying each other with our eloquence, I can agree to differ with you on the matter. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

1. MOSLEAD, if really intended to applied that way, may actually be wrong, I'd have to look more carefully at what is intention/examples/application to say. But already as fact it certainly does not apply to 500,000 bios where WP:OPENPARA always gives the accurate name first in lead, differing from common name in title.

2. Re. "That would be fair enough if "Međugorje" was an alternative name in English, but in fact it is not." (above) I cannot see any scientific basis for this statement. All English texts enabled for đ use đ. Only 2 of dozens of English GB hits enabled for đ do not use đ. Both the modern Bosnian and pre-WWI spelling are used in English, ergo they are wikt:alternatives. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you ought to read WP:OPENPARA again, as it doesn’t say anything of the sort (though it does say Generally the guidelines for lead sections (ie MOSLEAD) specify what should be in the first section".

And, “scientific basis”… how about Observation; (ie that 98% of all sources in English use the English spelling, while those that use the local spelling are invariably travel books, where local spellings might be expected, or are written by non-English authors) or an Experiment (write a letter to a mainstream English newspaper a with 'đ' in the text and see if they copyedit them out) to find a Conclusion (well, what do you know? Croatian modified letters, like 'đ' are not in general use in English after all). As for this “'đ' enabled” malarkey; are you peddling the same line again? It is pure speculation that publishers don’t use đ's because they can’t; or that publishes who can, do. There are plenty of publishing houses (just like the OUP, whom you find so unreliable in this matter) that also publish dictionaries and textbooks for students of foreign languages. Your opinion is unfounded; the evidence is quite to the contrary. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The current lead and infobox doen't really make sense. The local spelling should be italicized, not the English form. See for instance the Montreal article, I think it would be a good example to follow. mgeo talk 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mud-throwing and man in black

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

The one about the armed conflict is not conspiracy theories, but is a peer reviewed scientific article. These are usually the best preferred kind of sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:reliable sources. However, in this case, this scientific observation has been proven by several German, Austrian, Croat and Dutch journalists to be completely false. There has been no retraction of these scientific articles (yet), but the university is investigating the matter. See Mart Bax. Andries (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Withdrawn

Status of Medjugorje and Our Lady of Medjugorje have a lot of overlapping info with this article regarding the apparitions and their approval, to wit: Time and place of apparition Apparition's name and identity Apparition's message Visionaries Papal opinions Response of the Catholic Church Tomislav Vlasic's role and defrocking I think a merge will clear that up. Thoughts? Oct13 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Merge two, not all three: It would make sense to have two articles: one for the place and one for the case of alleged apparitions, but I don't think there will be enough co-operation among editors to resolve the problems of the two apparition articles until a decision comes from the Holy See, if then. Bistropha (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) So we merge Our Lady of Medjugorje and Status of Medjugorje? Because that would be helpful. Oct13 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC) I would oppose a merger; contrary to the assertion there is very little overlap or duplication here. This article (Medjugorje) is a 21 Kb piece about a town in the Balkans; there is a single section (maybe 3Kb) on the reported apparitions, which summarizes (and has main article links to) the other two articles. Our Lady of Medjugorje is more than 14Kb on the religious phenomena itself and has a three paragraph section on the Official position of the Church, which links to the Church response... article. That article itself is over 31 Kb long. So we have about 67Kb of copy, of which maybe 4Kb is overlap; that is about what you could expect in a main/subsidiary article arrangement, as we already have with the stuff on Lourdes and Fatima, for example. And 67Kb is past the point where we would otherwise be considering separate articles, so merging is entirely the wrong direction to be going in. Merging all three would give us a town article which is mostly about a religious phenomena, while merging the latter two would be an article about the phenomena which is mostly about why the church doesn’t think much of them. Definitely a clunky arrangement, IMO. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC) My thinking is this: Once the Church declares on Medjugorje, the Status of Medjugorje sections on arguments for and against Medjugorje will be unnecessary because the arguing over Medjugorje will be over - leaving only the official statements of the Church, which isn't enough for an article, plus the fact that both Medjugorje and Our Lady of Medjugorje already summarize the Church's official statements on Medjugorje. So why not just redirect Status of Medjugorje to Our Lady of Medjugorje? Oct13 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merging of Litmus Test of Medjugorje

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say "is basically admitting". I don't see it as an admission, because the question is - how should Wikipedia address a topic where there are multiple divergent opinions, and where a consensus does not exist, and so cannot be reported. For example take "Christianity". Can you expect to clearly describe the selected various "positions" in one article? It seems to me to make sense, in that case, to have an article where each position can be explained clearly and "objectively". One article for the Baptists, one for the Quakers, one for the Unitarians. The question is - When is this approach "the best" for presenting the information most clearly, rather than try to achieve a premature, or non-existent, consensus? ( Martin | talk • contribs 12:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Medjugorje. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713140601/http://www.kathpedia.com/index.php?title=Jozo_Zovko to http://www.kathpedia.com/index.php?title=Jozo_Zovko#Biografie

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)