Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 3

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

– Per WP:TITLE. A recent RM discussion confirmed that the common name in English for this place is spelt “Medjugorje” and is favoured over the local/Croatian spelling in sources by a considerable margin. As the same considerations apply to these pages (on the apparition connected to the place, and its status in the RC church) I am requesting these pages be moved to conform to that decision. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Our Lady of Međugorje → Our Lady of Medjugorje
 * Status of Međugorje → Status of Medjugorje
 *  Oppose [Support to close] - The RM discussion above had 7 supporting a restore to Međugorje, and only 5 opposing. It is not confirmation that WP Naming conventions for Bosnian names do not have support of the en.wp editing community. This a controversial proposal that seeks to give Međugorje an English name - despite sources like Rick Steves' Croatia & Slovenia 2012- Page 456 "Međugorje Mary - What compels millions to flock to this little village in the middle of nowhere?" or Norbert Gstrein Winters in the South 2012 "... cancer who,with his parents, had beento Bosnia the previous year to pray for a cure at Međugorje, the scene of the apparitions of Our Lady," or locally published EU, Croatian, and Bosnian English language sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: I followed your link to Naming conventions (Cyrillic) and it does not cover Bosnian at all! Why do you call it "WP Naming conventions for Bosnian names"? Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See Bosnian language. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In ictu: Let me remind you (as you seem to have forgotten):
 * i) An RM discussion is not a vote, but a chance to present policy reasons for your position, (which, despite interminable argument last time, you abjectly failed to do). Also, as you haven't noticed, two of the "7 supporting a restore" were offering reasons contrary to fact, and were (presumably) discounted.
 * ii) WP:CYR is not a policy, nor even a recommendation, as was pointed out to you in our previous discussions
 * iii) Despite trotting out a selection of examples, use of the local spelling in English is outnumbered by the common English spelling by a factor of more than 50 to 1
 * iv) It was your suggestion that these two pages be moved in the first place.
 * And nobody is “seeking to give Međugorje an English name”; it already has one, just like Munich, or Hanover, or Ushant, or the Danube.
 * Now, do you have anything new to say on the subject, or are you going to re-hash the previous argument yet again? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mind, "Medjugorje" is not an English name of Međugorje. It's an apparently widely used transcription of its (non-English) name, but still a wholly foreign word that's not a "Munich" or a "Danube". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. These titles should be consistent with the main title, which is Medjugorje. I don't know if people can read my ngram in the nom, so here it is again. Highbeam doesn't do diacritics, but it gives you 74 results for "Medjugorje" in the last two years, 4 for "Medugorjie". See Washington Post, The Independent, and Irish Times. Kauffner (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is in fact a very reasonable reference to an English Wikipedia policy, I'm also in favour of WP:AT "Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles., but the logic cuts both ways. By WP:AT Title Consistency logic the previous RM 7:5 should have restored to consistency 1 article to agree with the other 50,000 (1972 figure) settlements in the former Yugoslavia. Of course of that 50,000 most are simply mentions in town district articles in Category:Populated places in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the equivalent Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, categories. But of the 50,000, whether in title or text, I do not believe that there is a single one where đ has been turned back to the pre-WWI spelling of "dj". Is there? So why follow 1 which although not restored still failed muster a RM majority rather than 49,999? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is hardly unusual for a better known place name to retain a traditional spelling. Belgrade is a pre-WWI spelling as well. Kauffner (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Belgrade" is not merely a spelling difference from "Beograd", it's an actual anglicization. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged". It's a common misconception that loan words cannot be English if they have diacritics and only start being English when their diacritics disappear. In Wikipedia, our mission is to inform and educate, and we are duty bound to provide an accurate rendering of Roman script, complete with diacritics where they exist. To fail to do so would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Stripping of diacritics is a disservice to readers, as it "dumbs down" the project to the lowest common denominator. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 08:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And the rest:"...when deciding...follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language".
 * This has already been thrashed about ad nauseam in the previous RM; the place name in English (per just about all English language sources) is spelt "Medjugorje", so that is what we should follow. Or are you disagreeing with the guideline you just quoted?
 * As for the rest of your comment, it seems to suffer from some common misconceptions not only about what our polices actually say, but also about English itself. In the English WP, if we are "duty-bound" to do anything it is to provide an accurate rendering in English: it is the failure to do that which violates policy. If the general usage in English for a term is to use a diacritic, so should we; if not, then not. And an accurate rendition of the local script is adequately provided for by MOS:LEAD. But writing content in some bastardized form of English that would never be seen in any other English language media; that is what "dumbs down the project", and "is a disservice to readers" (particularly, I would suggest, ESL readers who will have enough trouble with regular English, let alone WP English). Moonraker12 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Moonraker12,
 * I'm speechless.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ohconfucius: Generally speaking, I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with using diacritics where it is appropriate. If you haven't already, though, I would urge you to read through the RM at Talk:Medjugorje, where much evidence was shown that in this case, the vast majority of reliable academic sources use "Medjugorje" - which includes sources that use diacritics elsewhere, and even sources that use the "đ" elsewhere. As I summarized below in my support !vote, and explained more fully in the RM, this is a similar situation to other placenames that differ only in diacritics, or in the substitution of a grapheme. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ohconfucius: Generally speaking, I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with using diacritics where it is appropriate. If you haven't already, though, I would urge you to read through the RM at Talk:Medjugorje, where much evidence was shown that in this case, the vast majority of reliable academic sources use "Medjugorje" - which includes sources that use diacritics elsewhere, and even sources that use the "đ" elsewhere. As I summarized below in my support !vote, and explained more fully in the RM, this is a similar situation to other placenames that differ only in diacritics, or in the substitution of a grapheme. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom. Medjugorje is the title of the article on the town. An RM failed to change that: it's not that an RM moved it to "Medjugorje" with insufficient consensus or participation, but that there was not a consensus to move it to "Međugorje". Therefore, for consistency, these articles should spell the name the same way. Scolaire (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Consistency with the parent article is nice, but more important is consistency within WP as a whole. Where a particular form of a word is shown to predominate in reliable English-language sources, we generally use that form over the native form, even when they only differ slightly. Thus, we have articles titled Azores (not Açores), Peru (not Perú), and - closer to home for Medjugorje - Bosnia (not Bosna) and Herzegovina (not Hercegovina). At the recent RM, it was painstakingly shown that for the town at issue, the vast majority of reliable academic sources use "Medjugorje". These sources include those that use "Medjugorje" while freely using other diacritics, and even sources that use "Medjugorje" while using the "đ" elsewhere in the text. Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. In the last RM, it was demonstrated that "Medjugorje" is far and away the more common form in English sources, and Dohn joe showed this is the case even in high quality sources, and sources that otherwise use diacritics. In fact, some sources that use the "đ" in other words used "dj" for Medjugorje. It's difficult to find specific diffs as the discussion was all over the place, but for instance this Oxford-published work uses diacritics but uses the "Medjugorje" spelling, while this book has "Karađorđević" (p. 143), but uses "Medjugorje" (p. 209). It's worth noting that many or most references to Medjugorje are actually about the Marian apparitions; consistency with the main article is nice.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per both the "most common spelling in English-language sources is Medjugorje" argument and the "consistency with the Medjugorje article, which consensus declined to move to Međugorje" argument, and importantly because this is a diacritics argument at all.  It  like one, but it's not.  Yet another pointless diacritics argument would be between, say, Medugorje and Međugorje, or between Medjugorje and Međjugorje, where the only difference would be the presence or absence of the diacritic mark.  But what we have here is markedly different orthography, showing both a difference in the number of letters and a diacritic: ' vs '.  We would clearly prefer the Anglicized spelling because that's what the majority of English-language sources use.  While there is no excuse for dropping a diacritic from a WP article just because you hate diacritics, there is countervailingly no excuse for trying to force a WP article to use a spelling that requires a foreign character set when an anglicization/romanization exists (with or without diacritics). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  22:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mind, the "dj" in "Medjugorje" is not an anglicization. "dj" has been used as a poor man's transcription of đ even on antique typewriters in Yugoslavia. An actual anglicization would do something to morph the rest of the word to be clearly pronouncable. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not that keen on non-English character sets to begin with but since this is widely discussed in English with English characters, there's no reason not to use the English version. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If any articles are the ones where casual English sources should trump geographic name precision, these are the ones - here the name of the place is peripheral, they're about the Marian apparitions. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree. My objection earlier stems in large part from (1) procedural issues relating to the original undiscussed move which occured after the highly publicised Lech Wałęsa RM. I'm less impressed with 2 of 9 sources using đ for other Bosnian names dropping the đ for Međugorje in apparition context, but can accept some authors are treating the apparitions as a cue to create an English exonym, which is what en.wp follows for other towns. (2) concerns that there's going to be a đ-hunt in the article copy body. See Talk:The Flying Dutchman (opera) and elsewhere for why we don't do that. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scepticism (or for our US friends, Skepticism)
The Scepticism/Skepticism section of this entry should contain a lot more information; it seems extremely thin. The following example, which makes up a large portion of this section, displays a lack of basic curiosity:

"Skeptical investigator Joe Nickell has noted that there are a number of reasons for doubting the authenticity of the apparitions such as contradictions in the stories. For example, on the first sighting, the children claimed they had visited Podbrdo Hill to smoke. They later retracted this, claiming they had gone to the hill to pick flowers."

Seriously, this is evidence that the children were untrustworthy witnesses? One assumes that Mr Nickell was not a young smoker and has no children who started smoking young, otherwise this is completely nonsensical. I spent years denouncing the dangers of cigarette smoking to my parents, and telling them how awful my sister was as a smoker - while all the while being one myself! Children often have very good reasons to lie about their activities, particularly when those activities are socially condemned or even illegal (smoking under-age). If this example were the sole basis for rejecting the children's evidence, then I would almost be tempted to believe in the 'miracle'. Please, can someone provide some decent reasons for rejection of these claims?Ambiguosity (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

These are good points and should be taken into consideration. Theanswerman63 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article does appear to be rather imbalanced. It relies heavily on citations to promotional sources such as medjugorje.com.

Here are sources that can be included to document the skeptical case:
 * English-language statements published on the Mostar-Duvno diocesan web site. (They are now at archive.org: )
 * the critical books by Donal Foley, Michael Davies, E. Michael Jones, and Fr. Ivo Sivric
 * source materials published in English translation at catholicculture.org, including the 2013 CDF warning conveyed by the papal nuncio in the US against attending pro-Medjugorje events.

As user Ambiguosity notes, the article does cite Joe Nickell's five-page overview of the case, which incidentally can be read in Amazon's display sample from the book (pp. 190-194):

In addition, the article's treatment of the statements from Abp. Hoser is confusing. Pope Francis assigned him to assess the needs of visitors, not to offer public statements of opinion on the case; and the article does not reflect that. Moreover, it doesn't reflect the partial retraction Hoser made when his statement about pilgrimages was found to contradict the 2013 CDF directive. 

One issue about this article is the overlap in topic with Status of Medjugorje. That tends to lead to some redundancy. Bistropha (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"documented"
We're told that numerous supposedly miraculous healings have been "documented". I'm surprised to find that some dictionaries don't agree with me, but as a native English-speaker I can't help feeling that "documented", like "recorded", implies relatively solid (independent) evidence. Since I don't believe in miracles (or visions of what I consider mythical figures), I'd prefer to see "documented" replaced by "reported" or some similarly neutral term - there can be no doubt that healings have been reported, so this is something we can all agree on. I don't want this to become an argument over belief and unbelief, but to my mind - despite the word "supposedly" - "documented" suggests that the healings are fairly firm proof the visions are real. I don't think a Wikipedia article should be suggesting any such thing, any more than that Santa Claus really does land on people's roofs with a team of reindeer. Of course, if people choose to believe they were healed by Mary, that's entirely up to them.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe the meaning is this: a healing is a medical outcome, and thus can be documented ("Prakash was declared free of cancer on 10 January 2011"), but the miraculous nature of the healing cannot be documented in that way, and thus attracts the adverb "supposedly". So the numerous healings were documented, and their miraculous nature was supposed.


 * So I am not sure that a change is really required, but since it can do no harm, I've replaced "documented" with "reported". MPS1992 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

See Also section
Thank you for your edits 142.161.81.20 but I don't see a repeat for the following links: Either show us where they are duplicated or put them back on the page. Thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maria Valtorta
 * Mariology
 * Private revelation
 * Roman Catholic Mariology
 * Hi, . The link that I said "redirects to another link that is already in the see also section" in my edit summary was Roman Catholic Mariology, which redirects to Mariology of the Catholic Church. Private revelation and Maria Valtorta are already linked elsewhere in the article (in the Official position of the church and the Visionaries sections respectively). They were removed per WP:EMBED which provides that "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes [emphasis in original]." (Similar guidance is also provided in MOS:SEEALSO.) With respect to Mariology, I had removed it as I felt it redundant to the more specific Mariology of the Catholic Church (as readers would likely navigate to Mariology via the Roman Catholic–specific article if they find themselves seeking information about non–Roman Catholic Mariology); however, now that I look again, I see that Mariology is also linked directly via Private revelation in the Catholic Church, thus also bringing WP:EMBED into play. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed response and I see all that you referred to. However, I do feel since this is an encyclopedia we should include all links including Mariology. This page includes diversity of Marian views other than catholic and it is important for Wikipedia to be broad minded.  I would be happy to insert it back in unless, you would like to.  Thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile that position with our guidelines – viz. MOS:EMBED and MOS:SEEALSO – which have been established by a central consensus? If your issue is with the guidelines themselves, that would be better addressed at WT:EMBED and WT:LAYOUT. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I didn't see the page Mariology imbedded in this article. Did I just miss it?Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I addressed that in my original comment. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we need others opinions because I don't agree with your assessment on Mariology.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In what regard? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already stated the reason above but I will repeat it for you. This page includes diversity of Marian views other than catholic and it is important for Wikipedia to be broad minded. Mariology is not limited to the catholic church and this page explains that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think know how that addresses how the position is reconcilable with the previously cited guidelines. And I think it's worth saying that, as an Anglican who is inclined to the high church party, I very much realize that Mariology is not the exclusive domain of Roman Catholics. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't really matter what you believe, wikipedia is here to provide the whole truth or the complete information for all. I think you should allow me to put this in so we can avoid an edit war or calling others into our discussion for a vote.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What leads you to believe that we can override a centrally established consensus, absent exceptional circumstances? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In reading about WP:EMBED here is what it says -"Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that are either included in the text of an article or appended to the end of an article. This does not apply to Mariology in this article. So I am going to add it back inRed Rose 13 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Does MOS:NOTSEEALSO not say that links in navboxes should not be repeated? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No it does not apply to Mariology - the link is not repeated - it is a completely different page with different information.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable source on sun gazing
The article currently says: "And yet some have been able to look at the sun during those times without any damage to their eyes." with a citation pointing to https://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/signs-and-miracles/testimonies-of-physical-healings.html. This seems like an unreliable source. Maybe we can do the same thing that was done with "documented" and make it less strong of a phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoubtingDisease (talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the page
As requested by Red Rose 13, I will write in a short description of my intentions regarding this article.

In my oppinion, the current state of the article is quite messy. I intend to, by using reliable sources, present every aspect of the alleged apparitions.

First of all, I'll write a section about historical events that occurred, and then present the moves taken by the Church regarding the apparitions - investigations, conclusions and so on.

Then, I'll focus on particular major messages, as presented by the alleged seers, with comments from reliable authorities.

After all of this, I intend to write about economic and political implications and effects.

--Governor Sheng (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stating your intent and the willingness to improve the page. I looked through most of your edits and I noticed that you deleted or changed some of the references already there. Let's move along slowly section by section ok?  There is no rush.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have. A big part of text was referenced by unreliable and biased website - medjugorje.info (or something of that sort). And the rest of the text (three paragraphs that had neutral references) was deleted, because I was working on it the day you asked me to explain my edits. So, ok. I'll sort that out in few days. Can't work right now on this article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Chronicle of Apparitions and Vicka's diaries
I propose adding this section to the article, with the content as here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Controversial apparitions and messages
I propose adding this section to the article, with the content as here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Croatian sources
This is the version we'll be using -. (It's the latest one)

Chronicle of Apparitions and Vicka's diaries
Bulat's book is available here

Ref. no. 21

"fra Tomislava Vlašića, koji postaje kapelan i duhovni vođa vidjelaca, te zapisuje u Kroniku ukazanja što su djeca vidjela i doživjela na tim “ukazanjima” i njemu priopćavala..."

"Friar Tomislav Vlasic, who became a chaplain and a spiritual director of the seers, and notes in the Chronicle of the Appartions what the children have seen and experienced in those "apparitions and what they told him"...."

Ref. no. 22.

"Dio Kronike ukazanja, koji smo dobili, fotokopiran odmah u početku rada, obuhvaća razdoblje od 11. kolovoza 1981. do 15. listopada 1983. Kroniku je pisao fra Tomislav Vlašić, izuzevši neke dane kad je bio odsutan. Bilježio je što se zbivalo svaki dan u svezi s liturgijskim činima i “ukazanjima” tako da se stječe dojam neposrednosti mjesta, događaja i svjedočenja očevidaca. Taj efekt neposrednosti postignut je izričajima: “Isti prizor kao i jučer”, “Večeras”, “I ove večeri”, “Ove večeri grupi se pridružila i Ivanka...”, “Jakov, Vicka i Marija i ove večeri bili su s Gospom”. Ovakvi i slični izričaji, koji su upotrijebljeni na mnogo mjesta, govorili bi u prilog da je upravo te večeri i sve zabilježeno u Kroniku i da to daje vjerodostojnost i Kronici i događajima. Međutim u samoj Kronici ima mjesta koja ne dopuštaju da se izvede takav zaključak."

"''The part of the Chronicle of the Apparitions, which we received, photocopied immediately at the beginning of the work, covers the period from 11 August 1981 to 15 October 1983. The Chronicle was written by Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, except for some dates when he was unavailable. He recorded what happened every day in connection with liturgical acts and "apparitions" so that one gets the impression of the immediacy of the place, events, and eyewitness testimony. This effect of immediacy was achieved by the expressions: "The same scene as yesterday", "Tonight", "This evening too", "Ivanka joined the group this evening ...", "Jakov, Vicka and Marija this evening as well were with Our Lady ”. Such and similar expressions, which have been used in many places, would speak in favor of the fact that on that very evening everything was recorded in the Chronicle and that this gives credibility to both the Chronicle and the events. However, there are places in the Chronicle itself that do not allow such a conclusion to be drawn.''"

Ref. no. 23.

"Slično je zabilježeno 20. siječnja: “Petero djece i ovu večer imalo je viđenje Majke Božje.” Vidioci su postavili i pitanje: “Što će raditi fra Ivica Vego i fra Ivan Prusina sad kad su istjerani?” Radi se o dvojici neposlušnih kapelana koji su suspendirani, tj. zabranjeno im je bilo vršiti svećeničke dužnosti i otpušteni su iz Reda OFM (primjedba N. B.). Gospa je odgovorila: “Oni nisu krivi. Biskup se u odluci prenaglio. Neka ostanu.” Ova nas činjenica ovdje zanima samo stoga jer su dvojica spomenutih kapelana otpuštena iz Reda tek 29. siječnja 1982. Čin otpuštanja iz Reda OFM dvojice spomenutih kapelana zabilježen je u Kroniku 9 dana prije nego li su bili otpušteni. To nam jasno govori da formulacija: “Petero djece i ovu večer...” (kurziv N. B.), tj. 20. siječnja, nije točna, jer to se nije zbilo te večeri niti je moglo biti zapisano te večeri, kad su kapelani otpušteni 9 dana kasnije."

"'A similar record was made on 20 January: "Five children had a vision of the Mother of God this evening as well." The seers 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, i. e. they were forbidden to perform priestly duties and were dismissed from the Order of Friars Minor. 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 Order of the two mentioned chaplains was recorded in the Chronicle 9 days before they were dismissed. This clearly tells us that the phrase: "Five children this evening as well...", i. e. 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.''"

Ref. no. 24.

"Kad je fra Tomislav Vlašić počeo pisati Kroniku ukazanja čiju fotokopiju imaju članovi Komisije? Teško je dati precizan odgovor. Sigurno je da to nije bilo prije svršetka listopada 1981. Iz već navedenih činjenica i onoga što je kroničar napisao kao neki uvod i objašnjenje na početku Kronike, čini se da je to bilo krajem veljače 1982. Na početku Kronike piše : “Ono što je vezano uz ukazanja donekle je zabilježeno ovdje. Djeca su mi govorila važnije događaje, a svaki dan nisam mogao mirno razgovarati s djecom te zabilježiti sve po redu (u nekim mjesecima samo je nekoliko dana zapisano nešto o viđenjima, primj. N. B.). Uglavnom djeca su mi rekla da ukupno od 24. 06. 1981, do 20. 02. 1982. samo u pet dana Gospa im se nije ukazala.” Ono što je napisano na početku Kronike služi kroničaru kao neki uvod, pa spominje što se do tada događalo onako općenito, sumarno, od početka ukazanja do 20. veljače 1982. To bi bilo neko “objašnjenje” onoga što se već dogodilo i uvod u ono što će se još zbivati. Na toj prvoj stranici stoji datum 25. 02. 1982. i potpis kroničara fra Tomislava Vlašića. Zašto je ovaj “uvod” u Kroniku napisan baš 25. veljače 1982. a ne prije, jer Kronika počinje 11. kolovoza 1981., ima smisla jedino ako je upravo tada počelo pisanje Kronike."

"''When did Fr. Tomislav Vlašić start writing the Chronicle of Apparitions, a photocopy of which the members of the Commission have? It is difficult to give a precise answer. It is certain that this was not before the end of October 1981. From the facts already stated and what the chronicler wrote as some sort of an introduction and an explanation at the beginning of the Chronicle, it seems that it was written at the end of February 1982. At the beginning of the Chronicle, it is written: “What is connected with the apparitions is to some extent recorded here. The children told me more important events, and every day, but I could not talk calmly with the children and record everything in order (in some months only a few dates regarding the visions were recorded). The children told me that from 24 June 1981 to 20 February 1982, Our Lady did not appear to them in just five days." What was written at the beginning of the Chronicle serves the chronicler as a sort of an introduction, so he mentions what happened until then in general terms, as a summary, from the beginning of the apparition to 20 February 1982. This would be an "explanation" of what had already happened and an introduction to it. On that first page is the date of February 25, 1982, and the signature of the chronicler, Fr. Tomislav Vlašić. Why this "introduction" to the Chronicle was written on 25 February 1982 and not before, since the Chronicle begins on 11 August1981, makes sense only if the writing of the Chronicle began just then.''"

Ref. no. 25.

"Prvi dnevnik obuhvaća razdoblje od početka “ukazivanja”, tj. od 24. lipnja 1981. do 6. rujna 1981. na preskok. Zapisano je ponešto samo u 26 dana, i to: u lipnju 2 dana; u srpnju 8 dana; u kolovozu 10 dana; te u rujnu 6 dana. Ovaj dnevnik koji smo primili odmah u početku bio je pisan pisaćim strojem. Tek puno kasnije - 30. svibnja 1985. - Vicka mi je predala jedan mali notes u kojem je bilo rukopisom napisano sve ono što se nalazilo otipkano pisaćim strojem u Prvom drveniku. Otipkani primjerak i rukopis slagali su se gotovo u svemu."

"The first diary covers the period from the beginning of the "visions", i. e. from 24 June 1981 to 6 September 1981 on the leap. Something was recorded in just 26 days, namely: 2 days in June; in July 8 days; in August 10 days; and in September 6 days. This diary we received right at the beginning, was typewritten. Only much later - on 30 May 1985 - Vicka handed me a small notebook in which everything that was typewritten in the first diary was handwritten. The typewritten copy and manuscript matched in almost everything."

Ref. no. 26.

"Interesantno je što je Vicka rekla u razgovoru s fra Jankom Bubalom kad ju je pitao o „znaku“: Janko: - U nekoj bilježnici (koju zovu tvojom) stoji da vam je Gospa 26. X. 1981. sa smiješkom rekla da se nekako čudi što je više za znak ne pitate. Ali da će vam ga ona sigurno ostaviti, da se ništa ne bojite… Vicka: - Dobro je to. Ali mislim da to nije bilo njezino prvo obećanje da će nam znak stvarno ostaviti. Janko: - To je točno jer u nekoj maloj bilježnici, koju je bilježila tvoja sestra Ana (radi se o rukopisu Prvoga dnevnika, primj. N. B.), zabilježeno je tri puta da vam je Gospa rekla već potkraj kolovoza da će svoj znak ‘brzo’ ostaviti, a evo, to se oteglo... Vicka: - Ja to ne znam. Ja nisam nikada tu bilježnicu čitala, a nisam ni Ani to govorila. Mora da je to neko drugi govorio (kurziv N. B.). Janko: - Mislim da su joj to govorili Jakov i Ivanka..."

"It is interesting what Vicka said in a conversation with Fr. Janko Bubalo when he asked her about the "sign": Janko: - In a notebook (which they call yours) it says that Our Lady told you on 26 October 1981 with a smile that she was somehow surprised that you don't ask her about the sign anymore. But that she will leave it to you, that you shouldn't be afraid at all. Vicka: - That's good. But I don’t think it was her first promise that she would really leave a sign to us. Janko: - This is true because in a small notebook, which was recorded by your sister Ana (it is a manuscript of the First Diary, note NB), it is recorded three times that Our Lady told you in late August that her sign will be left "soon", and here, it dragged on ... Vicka: - I don't know that. I never read that notebook, and I didn't tell Ana that either. Someone else must have said that (italics N. B.). Janko: - I think Jakov and Ivanka told her that"

Ref. no. 27...

Well... It's kinda long. You have a PDF available above, so serve yourself. :) Sorry.

Ref. no. 28...

Same...

Ref. no. 29.

Same...

Ref. no. 30.

Same...

--Governor Sheng (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

We'll continue other sections tomorrow. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide your English translation for each passage. Sundayclose (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My English translation? Why though? Aren't other editors supposed to do that or you're gonna rely on me? I'm gladly gonna do so tomorrow if it is a must. Some are already translated in the article, as you can see. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I want to know your translation before someone else fluent in the language translates, for comparison. That's the only way we know if your translation supports the edits to the article. I've been through this in another article. An editor was making bold claims about his translation of Spanish, and someone else fluent in Spanish corrected him. Any of us with little knowledge of the language can go to the source, look at a computerized translation, identify the relevant passage, and copy-paste it here as you have done. We need to see your translation as well as someone else fluent in the language. If you're fluent in both languages translation should not be difficult. Sundayclose (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There, it's translated. The rest can be compared to the PDF I left. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of the alleged seers
Kutleša's book

IVAN DRAGIČEVIĆ (pp. 33-35)
"Ivan je rođen u Mostaru, 25. svibnja 1965., a njegovi roditelji Stanko i Zlata borave u Bijakovićima u župi Međugorje. Završivši osnovno obrazovanje, pohađao je prvi razred srednje škole u Čitluku, ali ga nije položio. U kolovozu 1981. javio se u sjemenište kao kandidat Hercegovačke franjevačke provincije, već poznat po svojim "viđenjima". Poslan je u gimnaziju u Visoko. I u sjemeništu je imao gotovo svakodnevna "ukazanja". Budući da u Visokom prve godine nije uspio, ni nakon dva pokušaja, položiti popravni ispit, smatralo se da će biti uspješniji u školi ako prijeđe u dubrovačko sjemenište. Tako je ujesen 1982. iz franjevačke gimnazije u Visokom bio je premješten u dubrovačku humanističku. Dao se na učenje povijesti i drugih predmeta, a još više na "ukazanja". Međutim, ni u Dubrovniku se nije pokazao dostatno zainteresiranim za školu koju je napustio u siječnju 1983. I otišao kući. Ivan ima svakodnevna "ukazanja" od 24. lipnja 1981. do dana današnjega.

Neuobičajena nauka. Dok je bio u Visokom, 2. rujna 1981. pitao je "pojavu" za svoje kolege i za sebe kako će im biti. Ona da je rekla, a on zapisao: "Vi ste moja djeca i ostajete. Pošli ste Isusovim putem, i tu vam ne može nitko zasmetati da širite Isusovu vjeru."

Kad smo već kod sjemeništa, Ivan piše kako mu se 5. rujna i 12. rujna 1981. "Gospa" obraća našim kršćanskim pozdravom: "Hvaljen Isus i Marija"! - Malo je čudno da preponizna Gospa i samu sebe tako pozdravlja? Ona, učiteljica poniznosti.

K tomu 13. rujna 1981. piše: "Svi mi, djeca sjemeništa, bili smo poslije ispovijedi na molitvi. I molili smo cijelu krunicu. Došla je na Isusovu sliku i rekla je: ’Ovo je vaš otac, anđele!’

- Kakva je to nauka? To naša Gospa nije nikada rekla za Isusa, ni u Bibliji ni u Predaji. To Isus nikad nije rekao za sebe da nam je on Otac. On je apostole i nas zvao "braćom" (Iv 20, 17), jer je i sam "prvorođenac među mnogom braćom" (Rim 8,29). A sam naučavaše: "Ni ocem ne zovite nikoga na zemlji jer jedan je Otac vaš - onaj na nebesima" (Mt 23,9).

Pojava je Ivanu pričala svoj život punih pet mjeseci, od 22. prosinca 1982. do 22. svibnja 1983.

Ivan je poslao mjesnom biskupu Žaniću više pisanih "poruka" na koje ćemo se osvrnuti na drugom mjestu u ovoj knjizi.

Ženidba. Ivan se, 10-ak godina kasnije, 23. listopada 1994., oženio s bivšom miss Massachusetts Loreen Murphy. Na dan vjenčanja u župi sv. Leonarda u Bostonu u SAD-u, u prostoriji pokraj crkve, imao je uobičajeno "viđenje", upravo kao u Međugorju, Visokom i Dubrovniku. Ukazala mu se ona ista "pojava".2 Ivan s Loreenom ima troje djece. Dio godine Ivan provodi u Međugorju, a ostale mjesece u Bostonu.

I tako on godinama do danas iznosi priče o "ukazanjima" svjetskim dolaznicima u Međugorje i po svijetu. Do sada je imao devet "tajna" i jedno 7000 dnevnih "ukazanja". Sada neki kažu da nije uopće važno ukazuje li se ili ne ukazuje; važno je da ljudi dolaze na mjesto tzv. ukazanja i da se na temelju takvih takozvanih "ukazanja" mole.

"Bogati mladić". Piše jedan znanac iz svijeta biskupu, 1997.: "Ovih dana Ivan Dragićević u susretu s 'hodočasnicima' vozi svoj novi luksuzni BMW srebrne boje, s onim širokim športskim gumama, izvan serije, kao posebna narudžba iz Njemačke - vrijedi možda oko 150.000 DM!"

Ne znamo stvarno ni koliko to luksuzno vrijedi, ni koje je boje, ni serije. Ali Ivanu, kao bivšem sjemeništarcu, slobodni bismo bili uputiti skromnu poruku kad ih je on već toliko uputio biskupu Žaniću da se obrati "ukazanjima" u Međugorju.

Preporučujemo mu da se okani tih pustih dječjih priča oko Blažene Djevice Marije i preraste u punoljetnu zbiljnost! Već je troje drugih "anđela" svelo svakodnevna na jednogodišnje "ukazanje"! Od 365 godišnjih odjednom su 364 svedena na jedno! Doduše, doživotno! Treba početi uvoditi novu praksu - iznijeti svu istinu na sunce! Da nas istina oslobodi!"



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

Ivan has daily “apparitions” from 24 June 1981 to the present day.

Unusual doctrine. While in Visoko, on 2 September 1981, he asked for an “appearance” for his colleagues and for himself how they would be. She said this, and he wrote it down: "You are my children and you remain such. You have gone the way of Jesus, and there no one can bother you to spread the faith of Jesus."

Speaking of the seminary, Ivan writes that on 5 September and 12 September 12, "Our Lady" addressed him with our Christian greeting: "Praised be Jesus and Mary"!

- Is it a little strange that Our too-humble Lady greets herself like that? She, the teacher of humility.

In addition, on 13 September 1981, he wrote: "All of us, the children of the seminary, were in prayer after confession. And we prayed the whole rosary. She came to the image of Jesus and said, "This is your father, angel!"

- What kind of doctrine is that? Our Lady never said this about Jesus, neither in the Bible nor in Tradition. Jesus never said of himself that he was our Father. He called the apostles and us "brothers" (Jn 20:17), because he himself is "the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom 8:29). And he himself taught: "Do not call anyone on earth even a father, because one is your Father - the one in heaven" (Mt 23: 9).

The appearance told Ivan her life for a full five months, from 22 December 1982 to 22 May 1983.

Ivan sent several written "messages" to the local bishop Žanić, which we will refer to elsewhere in this book.

Marriage. Ivan, about 10 years later, on 23 October 1994, married former Miss Massachusetts Loreen Murphy. On the wedding day in the parish of St. Leonard in Boston, USA, in a room next to the church, had the usual "vision", just like in Medjugorje, Visoko and Dubrovnik. The same "appearance" appeared to him. Ivan and Loreen have three children. Ivan spends part of the year in Medjugorje, and the other months in Boston.

And so, for years to this day, he tells stories about "apparitions" to world visitors to Medjugorje and around the world. So far, he has had nine "secrets" and some 7,000 daily "apparitions". Now some say it doesn’t matter at all whether it there are apparitions or not; it is important that people come to the place of the so-called apparitions and that on the basis of such so-called "apparitions" they pray.

"Rich young man." An acquaintance from the world writes to the bishop, 1997: "These days Ivan Dragićević, in a meeting with 'pilgrims', drives his new luxury silver BMW, with those wide sports tires, out of series, as a special order from Germany - maybe worth around 150,000 DM!"

We don't really know how much this luxury is worth, or what color it is, or the series. But to Ivan, as a former seminarian, we would be free to send a modest message when he has already sent so many to Bishop Žanić to address "apparitions" in Medjugorje.

We recommend him to give up these empty children's stories about the Blessed Virgin Mary and grow into an adult reality! Already, three other "angels" have reduced every-day to a one-year "apparition"! Out of 365 annuals, 364 were reduced to one at once! Admittedly, for life! We need to start introducing a new practice - bringing all the truth to the sun! May the truth set us free!''"

https://express.24sata.hr/top-news/vidjelice-iz-me-ugorja-imaju-milijune-hoteli-vile-auti-22384 - express.24sata.hr

"Ivan Dragičević, jedan od vidjelaca, također je dobro unovčio svoje vizije, pisao je Goran Pandža za Tačno.net. Dok po svijetu prenosi "Gospine poruke", Dragičevićeva žena, bivša Miss Massachusettsa, Loreen Murphy, rukovodila je turističkom agencijom za hodočasnike u Međugorje."

Novinari talijanske TV emisije "Piazza Pulita" obišli su ulicu u Međugorju u kojoj živi četvero od šestero vidjelaca. Lokalci taj kvart zovu Beverly Hills. Tamo su pokušali razgovarati s obitelji Ivana Dragičevića, ali njega nisu mogli pronaći. Pronašli su, doduše, jednu stariju gospođu koja se predstavila kao Ivanova majka i novinarima je tad pokazala hotel koji navodno pripada Mirjani Dragičević-Soldo.

U prilogu je navedeno i kako je Ivan Dragičević otvorio hotel u Međugorju te kupio nekretninu s bazenom vrijednu milijun dolara. Otišli su zatim i u Krehin Gradac, mjestašce udaljeno dva kilometra od Međugorja. Tamo su snimili žutu vilu okruženu visokim zidovima i nadzornim kamerama. Ona pripada vidjelici Vicki Ivanković, ali nje u tom trenutku nije bilo kod kuće."



"Ivan Dragičević, one of the seers, also cashed in his visions well, thus wrote Goran Pandža for Tačno.net. While he carries the Madonna's messages around the world, Dragičević's wifre, former miss Massachusetts, Loreen Murphy, managed a tourist agency for pilgrims in Medjugorje."

Journalists of the Italian TV show "Piazza Pulita" visited a street in Medjugorje where four of the six visionaries live. Locals call the neighborhood Beverly Hills. There they tried to talk to Ivan Dragičević's family, but they could not find him. However, they found an elderly lady who introduced herself as Ivan's mother and then showed the journalists a hotel that allegedly belonged to Mirjana Dragičević-Soldo.

The article also states that Ivan Dragičević opened a hotel in Medjugorje and bought a property with a swimming pool worth a million dollars. They then went to Krehin Gradac, a town two kilometers from Medjugorje. There they filmed a yellow villa surrounded by high walls and surveillance cameras. She belongs to the seer Vicka Ivanković, but she was not at home at that time."

--Governor Sheng (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

IVANKA IVANKOVIĆ (p. 36. Kutlesša)
"Ivanka, zvana i Ivica, rođena je u Bijakovićima, župa Međugorje, 21. lipnja 1966., od oca Ivana i majke Jagode. Stanovala je i pohađala srednju školu u Mostaru.

Ukazivačka pojava pričala joj je svoj život od 7. siječnja do 22. svibnja 1983. Točno stotinu i četrdeset dana.

Posljednji redoviti susret s nebeskom pojavom bio je 7. svibnja 1985. Nikada u životu nije vidjela "Gospu" nježniju i ljepšu kao toga dana. "Danas je imala najljepšu haljinu koju sam ikad vidjela u životu. Ta je haljina svjetlucala na srebro i zlato." U istim haljinama bila su i dva anđela koja su pratila "Gospu". Pitala je Ivanku što bi "željela". "A ja sam zamolila da vidim svoju majku." Nakon grljenja i poljubaca viđenje je nestalo. I onda poruka: "Drago moje dijete, danas je naš zadnji sastanak. Ne budi žalosna, jer ću ti dolaziti na svaku godišnjicu, osim ove. Dijete moje, nemoj pomisliti da si nešto pogriješila, te ti zbog tog neću više dolaziti. Ne, nisi! Planove koje je imao moj sin i Ja, Ti si prihvatila svim srcem i izvršila… Ivanka, milosti koje si dobila ti i tvoja braća, nije dobio nitko na zemlji do sada!"

Nakon sat vremena viđenja, razgovora, Ivanka je poljubila pojavu koja je sa svojim anđelima vinula u nebeske visine. Ivanka ima "ukazanja" samo jednom godišnje, 25. lipnja, na obljetnicu "Gospinih ukazanja". Njoj nije potrebno više, jer je ionako dobila milosti kao "nitko na zemlji do sada".

Povjerena joj je i 10. tajna, 6. svibnja 1985.

Udala se za Rajka Eleza s kojim ima troje djece. Živi u Međugorju."



"Ivanka, also known as Ivica, was born in Bijakovići, Medjugorje Parish, on 21 June 1966, to father Ivan and mother Jagoda. She lived and attended high school in Mostar.

The appearing phenomenon told her its life from 7 January to 22 May 1983. Exactly one hundred and forty days.

The last regular encounter with the celestial apparition was on 7 May 1985. She had never in her life seen "Our Lady" softer and more beautiful than that day. "She had the most beautiful dress I've ever seen in my life today. That dress sparkled in silver and gold." In the same dresses were also two angels who accompanied "Our Lady". She asked Ivanka what she would "like". "And I asked to see my mother." After hugs and kisses, the apparition disappeared. And then the message: "My dear child, today is our last meeting. Don't be sad, because I will come to you for every anniversary, except for this one. My child, don't think that you did something wrong, and because of that, I will not come to you again. No, You did not! The plans that my son and I had, You accepted with all your heart and carried out... Ivanka, the graces that you and your brothers have received, no one on earth has received so far!"

After an hour of seeing, talking, Ivanka kissed the apparition that soared with its angels to the heights of heaven.

Ivanka has "apparitions" only once a year, on 25 June, on the anniversary of "Our Lady's apparitions". She doesn’t need it anymore because she’s received graces like “no one on earth so far” anyway.

She was also entrusted with the 10th secret, on 6 May 1985.

She married Rajko Elez with whom she has three children. He lives in Medjugorje."

--Governor Sheng (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

JAKOV ČOLO (p. 37 Kutleša)
"Jakov, zvani Jakša ili Jakiša, rođen je 6. ožujka 1971. u Bijakovićima, od oca Ante i majke Jake.

Od 25. lipnja 1981. imao je gotovo svakodnevna "ukazanja" do 12. rujna 1998.

Pojava mu je pričala svoj život od 7. siječnja do 11. travnja 1983.

U jednome intervjuu 1993., u jeku rata, kaže: "Gospa me i danas, kao i kao i svaki dan posljednjih dvanaest godina, tražila da se molim za mir u bivšoj Jugoslaviji. Djevica me uvjerila da mogu zaustaviti rat svojim molitvama…"

S putovanja po Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, dne 12. rujna 1998. javio se u Međugorje, u župni ured, ističući da mu se toga dana Gospa "ukazala" posljednji put. Viđenje je trajalo pola sata: od 11,15 do 11,45. Ta mu je pojava rekla da će mu se od sada ukazivati samo jednom godišnje, i to licem na Božić. Povjerila mu je 10. "tajnu". I dok mu je to povjeravala, bila je "tužna". A njega je ipak blago tješila: "Nemoj biti tužan, jer kao majka ja ću biti uvijek s tobom i kao svaka prava majka nikada te neću ostaviti".

Oženio se Talijankom Anna-Lisom Barozzi, 11. travnja 1993. Imaju troje djece. Živi u Međugorju."



"Jakov, aka Jakša or Jakiša, was born on 6 March 1971 in Bijakovići, to father Ante and mother Jaka.

From 25 June 1981, he had almost daily "apparitions" until 12 September 1998.

The appearance told him her life from 7 January 7 to 11 April 1983.

In an interview from 1993, during the war, he said: "The Madonna today, as every other day of the last 12 years, asked me to pray for peace in former Yugoslavia. The Virgin convinced me that I could stop the war with my prayers."

On a trip to the United States of America, on 12 September 1998, he reported to Medjugorje, to the parish office, emphasising that Our Lady "appeared" to him for the last time that day. The vision lasted half an hour: from 11.15 to 11.45. This apparition told him that from now on she would appear only once a year during Christmas. She confided to him the 10th "secret." And while she confided it to him, she was "sad." And yet she comforted him mildly: "Don't be sad, because as a mother I will always be with you and like any real mother I will never leave you."

He married Italian Anna-Lisa Barozzi on April 11, 1993. They have three children. He lives in Medjugorje."

--Governor Sheng (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

MARIJA PAVLOVIĆ (pp. 28-32; Kutlesa)
Marija, zvana i Marina, rođena je 1. travnja 1965. u Bijakovićima, župa Međugorje, od oca Filipa i majke Ive. Srednju je školu pohađala u Mostaru. Darovala je bubreg svomu bratu da mu spasi život. "Vidjelica" je od drugoga dana "ukazanja", 25. lipnja 1981.

R. Laurentin bio je čak uvjeren da će Bog nju kao poseban međugorski plod pozvati k sebi: "Ali u prosincu 1984., primjećuje msgr. Franić, Marija je imala pred-infarkt koji začuđuje u njezinoj dobi. Možemo se pitati priprema li se ona, kao i Vicka, da prerano napuste ovu zemlju: nešto što je uopće ne bi koštalo jer nema druge želje doli one da dođe k Bogu i Gospi".

U vezi s pokušajem življenja u samostanu, Marija je nedavno, na upit jednoga talijanskog novinara: "Zašto od vas nitko nije postao svećenik ili redovnica. Petero vas se vjenčalo. Znači li to da je danas važno stvarati kršćanske obitelji?", ispripovjedila ovu svoju odluku:

"Kroz tolike sam godine mislila da ću biti časna sestra. Bila sam počela posjećivati jedan samostan, želja da tamo pođem bila je vrlo jaka. Ali mi je časna poglavarica rekla: 'Marija, ako kaniš doći, dobro došla; ali ako biskup odluči da ne smiješ govoriti o Međugorju, moraš slušati.' U tom trenutku počela sam razmišljati da je možda moje zvanje u tome da svjedočim ono što sam vidjela i osjetila, i da ću moći tražiti put svetosti također izvan samostana".

Međutim, ipak je pokušala biti u "samostanu" nekoliko mjeseci. "Poslije 26. veljače 1988. - piše Laurentin -, Marija je pošla s fra Tomislavom Vlašićem u Parmu s jednom skupinom od 15-ak mladića i djevojaka koji su bili izabrani u Međugorju. On ih je poveo na petomjesečne duhovne vježbe, posvećene isključivo molitvi. Sve je otpočelo u zanosu i posvemašnjoj predanosti. Ipak, bio je to neuspjeh. Tomislav je vodio svoju zajednicu prema porukama Agnes Heupel, Njemice, koja je izliječena u Međugorju. Marija, čije su se mjesečne poruke našle na rubu, nije se s time slagala. Paolo Lunetti, koji se već pošteno bio zaljubio u nju, i koji će je 5 godina kasnije uzeti, izgladio je taj njezin spor, podupro je njezin izlazak iz zajednice i pomogao joj da objavi jedno otvoreno pismo koje je izazvalo veliku senzaciju u Italiji."3 U zajednicu fra Tomislava Vlašića, "Kraljice mira, potpuno smo Tvoji, po Mariji k Isusu", Marija je ušla svršetkom veljače 1988. i izišla iz nje u srpnju iste godine. Zašto je došlo do raskida?

Fra Tomislav Vlašić, koji od 1987. nije više član Hercegovačke franjevačke provincije, našao se u Italiji gdje je, zajedno sa spomenutom međugorskom "obraćenicom" i "ozdravljenicom", Agnes Heupel, kao neki mistični par, osnovao mješovitu duhovnu udrugu s navedenim naslovom. Izdao je i brošuru, u kojoj se poziva na to da je, na temelju "Gospina" odgovora preko Marije Pavlović, ta udruga pravo djelo Gospino. On piše: "Između ostaloga postavio sam pitanje Gospi preko Marije Pavlović. Marija mi je donijela odgovor Gospin, od 8. ožujka 1987: "Ovo je Božji plan".4 Na kraju brošure i Marija je donijela svoje svjedočanstvo. U njemu između ostaloga ona piše: "Kao što vidite, Gospa je dala program za zajednicu: 'Kraljice mira, potpuno smo Tvoji, po Mariji k Isusu' i vodi ovu zajednicu preko o. Tomislava i Agnes, preko koje dolaze poruke za zajednicu."

Međutim na Vlašićevu rečenicu, i na to svoje "svjedočanstvo", osvrće se Marija u svojoj izjavi od 11. srpnja 1988. i niječe da je ikada bilo ikakvih "poruka" preko nje za tu zajednicu i za to "djelo Božje".

Marija doslovno piše: Osjećam moralnu obavezu da, pred Bogom, Gospom i Crkvom Isusa Krista, dam slijedeće izjave:

1)	Iz tekstova 'Jedan poziv u Marijanskoj godini' i iz svijedočanstva koje nosi moj potpis, proizlazi da sam ja donjela Gospin odgovor na jedno pitanje fra Tomislava V. Taj odgovor bi bio: 'Ovo je Božji plan', odnosno proizlazi da sam ja s Gospine strane dala fra Tomislavu V. potvrdu i izričito odobrenje ovog Djela i programa započetog u Italiji sa molitvenom grupom iz Međugorja.

2)	Sada izjavljujem da nisam nikada pitala Gospu bilo koju potvrdu za ovo Djelo započeto od fra Tomislava V. i Agnes Heupel. Nikada nisam izričito pitala Gospu za sebe da li trebam imati udjela u ovom Djelu i nikada nisam primila od Gospe bilo kakvu uputu vezanu za grupu, osim što je svatko od nas trebao biti slobodan da napravi izbor za vlastiti život.

3)	Iz tekstova i iz svjedočanstva koje nosi moj potpis proizlazi da mi je Gospa ukazala da zajednica i program fra Tomislava V. i Agnes Heupel, su put Božji za mene i za ostale. Sada ponavljam da nikada nisam od Gospe primila ni dala fra Tomislavu ili bilo kojoj drugoj osobi jednu takvu potvrdu i uputu s Gospine strane.

4)	Moje prvo svjedočanstvo, takvo kakvo je objavljeno na hrvatskom i talijanskom jeziku, ne odgovara istini. Osobno nisam imala nikakvu želju da dajem bilo kakvu pismenu izjavu. Fra Tomislav V. mi je savjetovao, naglašavajući to više puta, da napišem kao vidjelica jedno svjedočanstvo koje svijet očekuje

5)	Trebam također izjaviti, da sadržaj pisma kako je prikazan i moj potpis izazivaju neka pitanja. Ja za sada na sva moguća pitanja mogu dati ovaj jedinstven odgovor, kojeg dajem, to ponavljam, pred Bogom, pred Gospom i Crkvom Isusa Krista: Sve ono što može biti shvaćeno kao potvrda i izričito odobrenje ovog Djela fra Tomislava V. i Agnes Heupel, od strane Gospe preko mene, apsolutno ne odgovara istini i isto tako istini ne odgovara ideja da sam ja imala spontanu želju da napišem ono svjedočanstvo.

6)	smatram, kao svoju moralnu obavezu, da ponovim, ponovno pred Bogom, Gospom i Crkvom, slijedeće izjave:

Nakon sedam godina svakodnevnih ukazanja, iza najintimnijeg iskustva kojeg imam o nježnosti i razboritosti Gospinoj, iza svega onoga što se mogu sjetiti o Gospinim savjetima i Gospinim odgovorima na moja osobna pitanja, mogu izjaviti da nije održiva ideja da Nebeski plan i globalna Gospina poruka u Međugorju imaju za svetu posljedicu i proces željen od Gospe ovo Djelo i program započet u Italiji od strane fra Tomislava V. i Agnes Heupel. Takođe je neophodno nadodati ovoj izjavi da se svakodnevna ukazanja nastavljaju.

Ovu izjavu potpisujem pred Presvetim Sakramentom i namjenjujem je svima onima koji su srcem vezani za "Djelo" Gospe u Međugorju

11. 7. 1988. Marija Pavlović.

O Marijinoj udaji za spomenutoga Paola Lunettija opširno su izvijestile dnevne novine. Obitelj Lunetti posjetila je Međugorje 1987. i upoznala se s Marijom. Vjenčala se s Paolom na blagdan Male Gospe u milanskoj crkvi "Santissimi Apostoli e Nazaro", 1993. "Mladenci su na bračno putovanje otišli na francusku Azurnu obalu, a živjet će u šesterokatnoj palači u Monzi",7 obznanili su radoznali novinari u samim naslovima.

Marija do sada ima devet "tajni". "Viđenja" ima svakoga dana. Preko nje iz Milana ili iz Međugorja "Gospa" šalje mjesečne "poruke" međugorskoj župi i svemu svijetu. Takve su "poruke" najprije prolazile kroz ruke fra Tomislava Vlašića, zatim pokojnoga fra Slavka Barbarića, a nakon njegove smrti kao posrednik javio se jedan sadašnji međugorski kapelan.

Marija s Paolom ima troje djece.



"Marija, also known as Marina, was born on 1 April 1965 in Bijakovići, Medjugorje Parish, to father Filip and mother Iva. She attended high school in Mostar. She donated a kidney to her brother to save his life. She's the "seer" from the second day of the "apparition", 25 June 1981.

R. Laurentin was even convinced that God would call her to himself as a special Medjugorje fruit: "But in December 1984, notes Msgr. Franić, Marija had a pre-infarction which is astonishing at her age. We can wonder if she is preparing, as well as Vicka, to leave this country too soon: something that would not cost her at all because she has no other desire than to come to God and Our Lady".

Regarding the attempt to live in a convent, Mary recently, when asked by an Italian journalist: "Why none of you became a priest or a nun. Five of you got married. Does that mean that it is important to create Christian families today?" explained her decision:

"For so many years I thought I would be a nun. I had started visiting a convent, the desire to go there was very strong. But the nun said to me, 'Marija, if you intend to come, welcome; but if the bishop decides that you must not talk about Medjugorje, you must listen.' At that moment, I began to think that perhaps my vocation was to witness to what I had seen and felt and that I would be able to seek the path of holiness also outside the convent."

However, she still tried to be in the “convent” for a few months. "After 26 February 1988 - Laurentin writes - Marija went with Fr. Tomislav Vlašić to Parma with a group of about 15 young men and women who were elected in Medjugorje. He took them to five months of spiritual exercises, dedicated exclusively to prayer. It all started with enthusiasm and utter devotion, but it was a failure, and Tomislav led his community according to the messages of Agnes Heupel, a German woman who was healed in Medjugorje, and Marija, whose monthly messages were on the brink. Paolo Lunetti, who was already fairly in love with her, and who would take her 5 years later, smoothed out her dispute, supported her exit from the community, and helped her publish an open letter that caused a great sensation in Italy." In the community of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, "Queen of Peace, we are completely Yours, through Mary to Jesus", Marija entered at the end of February 1988 and left it in July of the same year. Why did the break up occur?

Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, who has not been a member of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina since 1987, found himself in Italy where, together with the aforementioned Medjugorje "convert" and "healer", Agnes Heupel, as a mystical couple, founded a mixed spiritual association with the aforementioned title. He also published a brochure, in which he states that, based on "Gospa's" answer through Marija Pavlović, that association is the real work of Gospa. He writes: "Among other things, I asked Our Lady through Marija Pavlović. Marija brought me the answer from Our Lady, dated 8 March 1987: "This is God's plan." At the end of the brochure, Marija also gave her testimony and writes: "As you can see, Our Lady has given a program for the community: 'Queen of Peace, we are completely Yours, through Mary to Jesus' and leads this community through Fr. Tomislav and Agnes, through whom messages for the community come."

However, Marija refers to Vlašić's sentence, and to her "testimony", in her statement of 11 July 1988, and denies that there were ever any "messages" through her for that community and for that "work of God." Marija literally writes: "I feel a moral obligation to make the following statements before God, Our Lady and the Church of Jesus Christ:

1) From the texts 'One Call in the Marian Year' and from the testimony bearing my signature, it follows that I brought Our Lady's answer to one question of Fr. Tomislav V. That answer would be: 'This is God's plan', ie it follows that I, from Our Lady, gave Fr. Tomislav V. confirmation and explicit approval of this Work and program that began in Italy with a prayer group from Medjugorje.

2) I now declare that I have never asked Our Lady any confirmation for this Work begun by Br. Tomislav V. and Agnes Heupel. I never explicitly asked Our Lady for myself if I should have a share in this Work and I never received from Our Lady any instruction regarding the group, except that each of us should have been free to make a choice for our own lives.

3) From the texts and from the testimony carried by my signature, it follows that Our Lady pointed out to me that the community and program of Fr. Tomislav V. and Agnes Heupel are the way of God for me and for others. I now repeat that I have never received or given such confirmation and instruction from Our Lady to Fr. Tomislav or any other person.

4) My first testimony, as published in Croatian and Italian, does not correspond to the truth. Personally, I had no desire to make any written statement. Tomislav V. advised me, emphasising this many times, to write as a seer's a testimony that the world expects.

5) I should also state that the content of the letter as shown and my signature raise some questions. For the time being, I can give this unique answer to all possible questions, which I give, I repeat, before God, before Our Lady and the Church of Jesus Christ: All that can be understood as confirmation and explicit approval of this Work by Br. Tomislav V. and Agnes Heupel, by Our Lady through me, absolutely does not correspond to the truth and also does not correspond to the truth the idea that I had a spontaneous desire to write that testimony.

6) I consider, as my moral obligation, to repeat, again before God, Our Lady and the Church, the following statements: After seven years of daily apparitions, behind the most intimate experience I have of Our Lady's tenderness and prudence, behind everything I can think of Our Lady's advice and Our Lady's answers to my personal questions, I can say that the idea of ​​a Heavenly Plan and Our Lady's Global Message in Medjugorje having as the sacred consequence and process desired by Our Lady this Work and program begun in Italy by Br. Tomislav V. and Agnes Heupel is not viable.

It is also necessary to add to this statement that the daily apparitions continue.

I sign this statement before the Blessed Sacrament and dedicate it to all those who are heartily attached to the "Work" of Our Lady in Medjugorje.

11 July 1988. Marija Pavlović

Marija's marriage to the aforementioned Paolo Lunetti was extensively reported in the daily newspapers. The Lunetti family visited Medjugorje in 1987 and met Marija. She married Paolo on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Milan's Santissimi Apostoli e Nazaro Church in 1993.

Marija has nine "secrets" so far. There are "visions" every day. Through it, from Milan or Medjugorje, "Our Lady" sends monthly "messages" to the Medjugorje parish and the whole world. Such "messages" first passed through the hands of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, then the late Fr. Slavko Barbarić, and after his death, a current Medjugorje chaplain appeared as a mediator.

Mary and Paolo have three children."

--Governor Sheng (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Headquarters of the visions
Please, discuss the issues you have with this here before removing anything. Your recent edits are quite frivolous. What's the headquarters of the visions? I never heard of the expression anywhere. Your interpretations are your own. The infobox talks about the location of the apparitions, and there are many of them. Not only Medjugorje. Infobox should reflect this. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without regard to the "headquarters" issue, my objection to including a long list of locations is that it is inappropriate for an infobox, which needs to be as brief as possible. I attempted to link in the infobox the list of other locations, but you (or perhaps someone else) removed it. Until this issue is settled, please restore that link. Thanks.
 * By the way, and  if you have not already violated the letter of the law for edit warring (WP:3RR), you have violated the spirit of the policy. Please stop reverting each other until there is discussion here. Otherwise you both may end up unable to edit. Sundayclose (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The investigations are completely about what happens at Medjugorje, the church is in Medjugorje, Mirjana is still to this day receiving regular visions in Medjugorje. It is fine to list where the visionaries had visions outside of Medjugorje but not in the info box. The info box is not meant for that as Sundayclose has pointed out. Plus if you want this list it is important to explain each vision and the physical locations where it happened. Most visionaries are not receiving any visions or if they are it is once a year and that is important to state in your list. I think your list is important to include but it is impossible to add this information in the info box. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The investigations are completely about what happens at Medjugorje"? Says who? They aren't. The investigations encompass all the visions, not only those in Medjugorje. There are churches in Boston as well, I believe. Ivan Dragičević and Marija Pavlović receive their visions in Boston and Milan... So what? Mirjana is just one of the alleged seers. I don't need to explain everey single vision that happened. There are 40k+ of them. Are you serious? --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway the info box is not the place to put this list according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Also why would you want to start listing visions if there are 40 thousand of them.If you list them, you need to explain them. Also according to the Our Lady of Medjugorje page the investigations are completely related to Medjugorje. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Nowhere does the article states that "the investigations are completely related to Medjugorje". They are related to the alleged apparitions. For example, the Ruini's commission had a task to "collect all the material", which doesn't say its located completely in Medjugorje. The same commission examined all the alleged apparitions after July 1981, which included daily apparitions in Boston. Stop making things up, please. --Governor Sheng (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the reference used for the Ruini commission. It is completely about Medjugorje.  Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, it's not. That's the title because we all know the apparitions as Medjugorje apparitions, however, they occurred at other locations as well. One thing is how we refer to the phenomenon, the other is where it ocurred. --Governor Sheng (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I read the whole report and it is completely about Medjugorje - Here a quote from the Pope After examining the Ruini report and the opinions of the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope decided to entrust to the Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser a “special mission of the Holy See” to “acquire more in-depth knowledge of the pastoral situation “In Medjugorje, and “above all, the needs of the faithful who come to pilgrimage” to “suggest any pastoral initiatives for the future.” He is talking about the pastoral situation in Medjugorje and the needs of the faithful who come to pilgrimage.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So? Are there not daily apparitions in Boston? Or in Monza? Or you're calling the seers liars? --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. Anyway, the issue of the infobox that Sundayclose also said, is that the Infobox needs to be as brief as possible. So once again I will be moving the long list into the text of the article in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. If you choose to oppose this, I will then ask for other editors to come to this page and vote on what is correct.  I am not sure why you don't want to follow Wikipedia rules. Your list has not been deleted just relocated. Also, the list won't make sense without a brief explanation next to each location.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The term I agree to is "Medjugorje and a number of other locations". --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Investigations
I propose adding this section to the article, with the content as here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Investigations is already under Official position of the Church - lets delete this sectionRed Rose 13 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The article as of Oct. 24, 2020
There are a couple problems with the article as it stands today. First is unresolved disputes between and. This is detrimental to the article if you cannot work collaboratively. Secondly, it is riddled with bad grammar and spelling. Someone proficient at English needs to step in and copyedit the whole thing. Thirdly, there are decidedly non-neutral points here. Use of words to watch such as "claimed", etc, is probably not good for neutrality. Yes, the apparitions are alleged, but we can find neutral wording that does not judge in Wikipedia's voice. Fourth and last, there is a WP:COATRACK problem. This article is about an alleged Marian apparition but what we have here is the chronicle of bad behavior of clergy and laity alike. We have a lot of "he said-she said" stuff, we have drama and expulsions and suspensions and diktats. And very little of it is directly related to the apparitions. So I would ask all editors to observe WP:DUE and cut this article down to the sourced essentials: talk about the apparition and leave out the drama occuring behind the scenes. If we find it necessary, a split article could occur, although I think others already exist, such as for (former) Fr. Vlasic, etc. We should keep biographical information in biographical articles and avoid needlessly lengthening this one. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed myriad unreliable sources, most apparently WP:SPS that we cannot use for extraordinary claims such as this apparition. I also replaced the lede infobox image with one that is ... uh... actually related to Medjugorje? Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding my recent edits, Rose and I have agreed that I'll explain them on the talk page. Which I did. However, nobody was interested enough to give any comments. So, I included some edits by myself. Note to be taken, Rose objected me rewording the whole article, however, Wikipedia is free, and anyone can edit. I didn't know I need to consult other editors so I could expand the article (I haven't reworded it, as I did previously, a month or so ago). As far as I understand, expanding articles is a positive thing here. Rose was well aware of my edits, since I added nothing new. All I added two days ago, was included in the article a month or so ago. Rose read those parts and deleted them. She knew them and commented nothing on them. Other editors, as far as talk page is concerned, simply don't give a damn. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I really don’t want to criticize anyone for their beliefs, however, judging by the comments on my talk page, I can conclude that is biased. Long ago she deleted my comments claiming that I could not rearrange the complete article without consulting other contributors.

I complied with her request. Red Rose, when removing my changes, read them and is very familiar with them. She left no comments on my changes but simply removed them.

And now she has the freedom to comment, however she has not done so for more than two months.

It saddens me to have to conclude that Red Rose, because of her bias, is honestly not interested in the opinions of other contributors, as much as my changes not to be included in the article at all. I am of the opinion that her insistence on the opinion of other users is aimed at procrastination. Other contributors had more than two months to comment, including Red Rose. They haven't. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Elizium23 for your reasonable and logical suggestions. I noticed some of the references were in the Croatian language and impossible for English speaking people on this English Wikipedia site to refer too. It seems to me the references should be from the English language.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is wrong. Sources don't need to be in English, however, those in English are preferable. However, in today's world, we have tools that make translations much easier. Readers can always use google translate. It's a good tool. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * G Sheng we see things differently but it makes it difficult to collaborate with you when you make it personal. You accuse me of (1) being biased, (2) When I removed something today, I left a comment on the edit and you accused me of not leaving a comment, (3) In the previous post you said, " I'll sort that out in few days. Can't work right now on this article. --Governor Sheng 15:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)"  I haven't seen anything until today when you came in with no explanation and made huge changes to the page.  That is not collaboration, that is taking over on your own. (4) When I read comments on your talk page, it was obvious that you are biased against this page. In moving forward I suggest you revert your edits and we start from the beginning. I think it is important to use references in English that would support this English based page.  English speaking researchers need to be able to read the reference. We can work together gathering reliable references. Also, I agree with Elizium23 when he/she says this is a "chronicle of bad behavior of clergy and laity alike. We have a lot of "he said-she said" stuff, we have drama and expulsions and suspensions and diktats. And very little of it is directly related to the apparitions." Elizium23 please feel free to remove all of it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's try to sort things out. What I meant is you left no comment on this talk page for two months. And you knew my changes very well as you read them. I understand me stating "I can't work on this article" made you ignore the whole thing. Understandable. However, on my talk page, you cannot find my comments about this article. Those are the comments of a fellow user, whom I asked about his oppinion on the matter. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Elizium23 thank you for uploading the correct photo! :) Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, well, I agree that anyone who proposes a complete overhaul of an article (or an addition of 12k of wikitext) should gain consensus first, because that's a major, major change. So don't be surprised if huge revisions are reverted for your discussion first.
 * Also, it is good to have sources in Croatian because they are close to the primary events. Of course, we prefer English sources, but WP:RS in English on Medjugorje? Not very much from which to choose, compared to Croatian! Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I note that I waited two months for comments (as you can see in the section above). Red Rose didn't bother one bit to comment on anything further. She was satisfied with the status quo. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a short description like that is sufficient to give notice to editors of huge changes. If it would be contentious, I would say put it in a sandbox first (best) or propose sections at the talk page for comment (second best).
 * Once you make a very large, WP:BOLD edit and it's reverted, then you begin to discuss the constituent parts in a civil way. Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We'll do so. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * G Sheng... I didn't think it was necessary to comment because you said you weren't ready to edit. I assumed you would comment when you were ready.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Elizium are you going to take out the contentious statements that have nothing to do with the page?Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to clean up the page first, then add new content.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Elizium are you going to take out the contentious statements that have nothing to do with the page?Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to clean up the page first, then add new content.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Again G Sheng you are doing your own thing. I reverted your edits. I have been waiting for Elizium to comment about what he intends to do. We are not in a rush on Wikipedia. Why in the world did you delete content that Elizium said needs a reference? To fulfill the reference is not an instant. We all have other lives. Bring your proposed edits here. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also when words are in quotes, we do not change anything in it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just plain silly. Of course I'm gonna fix typos and similar errors in quotes. --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I read and re-read this article, I realize that it is out of balance and quite a mess. Certain subjects are out of place and unnecessary. We should restructure the article while at the same time cleaning out unrelated issues that don't relate to the visions at Medjugorje and are quite mundane and of no significance.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What subjects? What is there in article that is not related to the alleged apparitions? --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

, if you think that conflict between the bishop and Franciscans is unrelated to the apparitions, I strongly disagree. The Ruini commission examined heavily those messages relating to the conflict, and because of it found them to be incredible. The Franciscan issue is very much related to the alleged apparitions, as it is one of the main arguments against the authenticity of the apparitions and should be discussed very broadly in the article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I reached out to Elizium23 to come help us with this page. Let give him time respond.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are free to discuss the proposed chapters bellow any time. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I researched this subject and am looking at other encyclopedias and their presentation. The structure of this page is not clear or balanced.  Also, the focus needs to be on the visionaries and the Lady. When difficulties arise they can be included but not too much information... just basics. I suggest looking at how it is presented in other respected online encyclopedias. And we can then discuss how to restructure this article and clear out unnecessary info. Hopefully, in the meantime  will join usRed Rose 13 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The focus is on the  visionaries and the Lady, however, all sides need to be presented. Some major problematic issues must be discussed in the article, and these are controversial messages and many other things, that need to be included in future. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also one of the encylopedia articles has a long list of references which we can include in this article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was studying the page and your new edits. The author Bulat and his words quoted for the footnotes are all in English. Did you translate it? Or is the book available in English.  And what is Bulat's bio and in English? I am not sure we can use this reference if we cannot read it or read study his credentials?Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I translated his text but will revert it to original Croatian, as I did elsewhere later. Regarding Bulat, he was a member of the first two commissions created by Bishop Pavao Žanić. Bulat was a native of Split, Croatia and was a Catholic priest and professor of theology at the Archdiocese of Split-Makarska. He died in 1990. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should start by you removing the recent edits you added. I notice you have them in your sandbox. And then we can see what else needs to be cleaned out. Then we first need to explain briefly about Medjugorje the town then what happened. Then explain who Our Lady of Medjugorje is and explain who the seers are. When telling a story, one needs to first tell the story. In wikipedia we need to remain neutral and not use words like controversial or problematic. We just give facts and the reader decides for themselves. Also we don't need to go into great detail regarding every single issue. I will also be working on other related pages to clean them up as well.  In regards to the Croatian language have you noticed that there are many Wikipedia pages in other languages. The one we are working on is the English version. Your thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, we should agree about the structure of the article, before removing anything. Regarding the structure. I agree we should first explain about Medjugorje, both its religious as well as political situation. By religious situation, I mean explaining the whole situation regarding the Herzegovina Affair, and regarding the political situation, we should mention that at the time, Medjugorje was part of communist Yugoslavia and so forth. Now, the problematic part is explaining who "Our Lady of Medjugorje" is. We don't know. That's why I think we should rather explain what the "seers" claim to have seen and compare that with other facts. Regarding this issue, I think the first several "apparitions" should be discussed chronologically. We can insert both claims of the "seers" and other witnesses, the people who talked to them, and so on. Then, the controversial issues should be discussed, such as the "seers'" or "Our Lady's" messages for bishop in the Herzegovina Affair (this is an important issue since those messages were thoroughly discussed by all commissions organised by the diocese or the Vatican). This subject cannot be avoided. It's an important element in understanding what Medjugorje is. Since it is an important issue for all sides, it must be discussed in this article as well. Also, we should mention other controversial messages. We can also discuss some other messages the "seers" allegedly received, such as prayers, fasting, and so forth. Then, I think we should discuss the commissions and their results, then the official position of the Church on the issue. Afterwards, we can talk about other aspects, both political and economic. And lastly, we can add short bios of the "seers".
 * I agree that we, as an encyclopedia must be neutral. However, words like "problematic" and "controversial" aren't biased. According to Merriam-Webster, "controversial" is something relating to or arousing controversy, and the same dictionary defines "controversy" as a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. We have two views of these messages, with both sides giving them a different interpretation. Thus, they are, by defintion, controversial. Problematic is something that is "difficult to resolve". Some aspects are difficult to resolve, and are thus problematic. There's no clash with neutrality here.
 * We can use Croatian sources for the English Wikipedia. There's no question about it. This is a non-issue. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just reread the guidance from at the top of this discussion. His words copied from above: "This article is about an alleged Marian apparition but what we have here is the chronicle of bad behavior of clergy and laity alike. We have a lot of "he said-she said" stuff, we have drama and expulsions and suspensions and diktats. And very little of it is directly related to the apparitions. So I would ask all editors to observe WP:DUE and cut this article down to the sourced essentials: talk about the apparition and leave out the drama occuring behind the scenes." You can remove it all or I will need too. Your choice. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't have any ultimatums from you. This is an important issue, regardless of what Elizium said (I believe in good intention). This is clear from the work of all commissions formed. The commissions examined this issue, so they should be discussed in the article. His premise is obviously wrong. Saying that "very little of it is directly related to the apparitions" is plain wrong. The apparitions directly dealt with the Herzegovina Affair, many messages were produced on the issue, the tree commissions discussed this as well... Elizium couldn't be more wrong. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted the rest of your edits that I meant to revert when I reverted your other edits. We can now discuss how to enhance the page. I moved a number of things around to give it more continuity and structure.  We should add the photos of each seer to the page and represent each seer just like it has been done for Vicka. We need to give the account of each seer when they first saw her and how this has affected their lives.  We should also add a section Influence to list how this event has helped others. Also, I read where Pope John Paul II held Medjugorje in high regard and this needs to be added. We can add the controversies to this page under one section which can include the skepticism section.  I noticed you have already created a page for one of your controversies and we can add a sentence or two on this page and then refer the reader to that page. No he said she said stuff however.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot add photos of the "seers", as we don't have any. We should return the section about controversies, this cannot be avoided. Influence can include many other things, such as economical and political aspects, and should take the bottom of the page. These, I agree, should be included. Skepticism section, I don't know what to do about it. The official position of the Church obviously, I believe, we agree, should be included. These include the work of all the commissions so far; comments from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and so on. These in itself include many skeptical aspects. Maybe the "Skepticism" subsection could be renamed, such as "Scientific aspect" or something like that. I don't know. The Church itself is skeptical enough. If you believe other non-Catholic skeptics should be included, I'm fine with that. Don't have any opinion on it. I consider it of little relevance. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you by "a page for one of my controversies" think about Herzegovina Affair, yes, we should include that in the section about controversies. I believe in a form of summary, and we could agree on a common text about it. However, this issue is way bigger than Medjugorje. I cannot possibly talk about Medjugorje in the Herzegovina Affair article, because, for the whole affair, Medjugorje is just a minor part. The issue is 140 years old. So greater emphasis on this subject should be given in the article about Medjugorje, than in the article about the Affair itself. Whatever the case, the section "Controversies" should direct to the Affair "(See also: Herzegovina Affair)". --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding images, these here I believe, are all free for use. So be my guest. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Question how does the 140 year old Herzegovina Affair relate to Our Lady of M.? Thanks for the photos I will work on that as a secondary research. In regards to the info we should only put in Medjugorje in the box with a more details explanation in the body of the text.  I know the visionaries had visions in other countries when they traveled but the main source in Medjugorje. The word Controversy somehow doesn't fit on Wikipedia.  I researched for synonyms but none of them would work. What other title can we give area? What subjects do we need to have there exactly? Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I notice you are using news article from Yugoslavia and there is no way that we English speakers can read the article or check the news source for validity. This is a problem and the only way I can see resolving this, is for you to find valid references that are in English and that are verified as a reliable reference. Otherwise we will need to remove the reference and the information from it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a way. You can use google translate. It will be good enough. You cannot demand this. Sorry. Remove them, and I'll report you to admins. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Google translate is not a solution because it can be terribly inaccurate. If anyone is using Google to translate, that is a serious problems. Consider the situation at the Scots language Wikipedia. It was discovered that someone who created and edited a huge number of their articles had no knowledge of the language; they were using computer translation. That has been a disaster. I don't have a problem with non-English sources, although English is preferred, as pointed out above. But I have concerns about whether these sources are being accurately reflected in the edits. I wonder if we could find an independent person who has skills in the Croatian language to verify the edits made from those sources. Perhaps someone from WP:WikiProject Croatia or another wikiproject. I encountered a similar issue in another article that had several sources in Spanish. It turns out that either the sources were not being properly translated or (worse) being misrepresented. Sundayclose (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , be my guest. But Red Rose will not remove anything. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sundayclose. There is another problem. (1) G Sheng first put in footnotes that he either translated or used Google translate and now I believe some of the footnotes and references are all in Croatian. This is a problem for the English focused Wikipedia. (2) I also noticed they seemed off. (3) Also he picks and choosea words from the reference and they seem out of context. I always go to the article that is reference to check for that. I suggest he find the reference in English and post that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you're not correct. Sorry. I'm able to speak Croatian, so I don't use google translate at all. Nothing's out of context. Point me something that I wrote and that was misused, either deliberately or accidentally. I'm very careful about that. I requested native speakers to come and check my sources. If I misquoted something, and I haven't, I'll gladly remove everything. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you speak Croatian is irrelevant to the issue of whether sources are being accurately represented in the article. I'm fluent in a second language, but that doesn't mean anyone on Wikipedia is obligated to trust whether I am accurately presenting the content of a source in that language. Translation is original research unless it can be verified that the information is being "faithfully translated into English". Also note, according to WP:NONENG (a part of the core policy of WP:V), "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". There are translators available for some languages on Wikipedia at WP:Translators available. So I am now requesting that you provide the original text and the translation for any non-English sources that you have used in a separate section on this talk page. Then we can seek someone to verify the translation. I'm not accusing you of intentional mistranslation, but with the dispute here it is reasonable for you to demonstrate accurate translation. Sundayclose (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll gladly do so. :) I'll create a separate section, and then we'll get to work. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Check Verifiability. "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page."

Wanna quote, Red Rose? --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Boris Rašeta, whom I quoted several times, is a well-known Croatian journalist, while Jutarnji list is one of the most reliable newspapers in Croatia. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

, . I requested a native speaker. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2020 (UT


 * As I mentioned above the long list of future physical locations where the visionaries went and had visions, is not representative of the headquarters of the Lady of Medugorje visions. They started here in 1981 and have continued for 35 years. It will confuse readers to have it there. Also to not confuse the reader, you will need to explain each location and what happened at each location.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as the "headquarters of the visions". It's your own invention. Some of the visionaries live for example in Boston, and he has daily apparitions. Apparently. So the visions occur there every day. It is a site of apparitions. It's not only Medjugorje. I don't see why readers would be confused? Boston is as good as headquarters of the visions as Medjugorje. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The investigations are completely about what happens at Medjugorje, the church is in Medjugorje, Mirjana is still to this day receiving regular visions in Medjugorje. It is fine to list where the visionaries had visions outside of Medjugorje but not in the info box. The info box is not meant for that. Plus if you want this list it is important to explain each vision and the physical locations where it happened. Most visionaries are not receiving any visions or if they are it is once a year and that is important to state in your list. It is impossible to add this information in the info box. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "The investigations are completely about what happens at Medjugorje"? Says who? They aren't. The investigations encomass all the visions, not only those in Medjugorje. There are churches in Boston as well, I believe. Ivan Dragičević and Marija Pavlović receive their visions in Boston and Milan... So what? Mirjana is just one of the alleged seers. I don't need to explain everey single vision that happened. There are 40k+ of them. Are you serious? --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I saw the quotes from the Kutleša's book and your translation. One thing I noticed about the book, is that the author adds his opinions about the so called facts. A true journalist would only give facts and leave it to the reader to decide and that is what Wikipedia expects. We also need to see where the author gets his information... the sources. To me the book is not a credible source. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See the references in his book. He is a credible source. An archbishop who served as a member for the Congregation of Bishops and Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He became a monsignor, by the decision of Pope Francis. He is a reliable source. Of course some conclusions are his opinion. It's his book (monograph: "the main purpose of a monograph is to present primary research and original scholarship ascertaining reliable credibility to the required recipient"), isn't it? He doesn't write for Agence France-Presse. It's impossible to write your own monograph without any conclusions on your own. It's just silly to assert otherwise. Sorry. --Governor Sheng (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I read the whole report used as a reference on this page and it is completely about Medjugorje - Here a quote from the Pope After examining the Ruini report and the opinions of the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope decided to entrust to the Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser a “special mission of the Holy See” to “acquire more in-depth knowledge of the pastoral situation “In Medjugorje, and “above all, the needs of the faithful who come to pilgrimage” to “suggest any pastoral initiatives for the future.” He is talking about the pastoral situation in Medjugorje and the needs of the faithful who come to pilgrimage.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you're trying to connect unrelatable things. Are there appearances outside Medjugorje or not? Daily appearances? --Governor Sheng (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The visionary BIO section should be in alphabetical order. You mentioned it should be in the order of most important but in reality they are all important. To have names in alphabetical order give order and avoids confusiion to the page and is easier to find a particular person. Please put the names back in order.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had the whole day to edit and I did a tremendous amount of research, found references where needed and I put in a lot of time on this page. I think you will be happy with everything I did.  If not, please let me know here and we can discuss it.  I spent a lot of time improving the page, adding photos and some new information. Let me know what you all think. Also no one has been around for a couple of days. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G Sheng you reverted all of my edits without reading them all and named them all as onesided. If you revert them all again, I will be forced to invite more editors to join us.Also come here and explain your problem.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stop being borderline hypocritical". We agreed that there will be no major inclusions without discussing them first. I read your edits very well. Stop talking in such a threatening tone. You're not in a position to give any ultimatums to anyone. Include it again, and be assured, I'll include those parts you one-sidedly removed a few days ago. They are one-sided as they were written only by you. Get serious. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Resources for this page
I went through and gathered from our reference discussions (1) the ones we can use, (2) ones we can use with caution and (3) ones that are not acceptable. If I missed something or when a reference is discussed, please post it and Slpi's comments under the correct heading for us all to review. I included Slpi's comments for our education. Please keep this section informational only and keep separate from discussions or comments about any resource.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Updated 12/16/2020 Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Approved by SlpI

BOOKS •	Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Daniel Maria Klimek Oxford University Press, 2018 •	Our Lady of the Nations: Apparitions of Mary in 20th-Century Catholic Europe (2016) OUP by Chris Maunder is a high quality, recent reliable source. It is an excellent source for the article •	Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States by Vjekoslav Perica •	“The Miracle Detective An Investigative Reporter Sets Out to Examine how the Catholic Church Investigates Holy Visions and Discovers His Own Faith” - Randall Sullivan Grove Press - About Sullivan, FYI you will notice that I never dismiss books because they are 'biased'. That is because reliable sources do not have be neutral. (see WP:BIASED. What is important whether there is editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and independence from the topic. An investigative journalist published by a reputable publisher probably meets that criteria. Slp1 •	A Pope and a President John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century by Paul Kengor Open Road Media  •	Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary ... By Daniel Maria Klimek   •	“Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division.” Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion by Juan A. Herrero 1999 is an excellent source. Peer reviewed, academic source, so very high quality, even if it is a bit old it will be very useful for the early history.  •	Couldn’t find the book name please add it here: It seems like the Marijana Belaj book has a reputable publisher, so I think you can consider that book a reliable source. Slp1 •	"Problematični elementi u fenomenu Međugorja" [The problematic elements in the Medjugorje phenomenon]. Bogoslovska smotra (in Croatian). Zovkić, Mato (1993). Mato Zovkic is an academic, who publishes the article in a peer-reviewed academic journal [64] so the answer is yes. Slp1 •	The Vatican Prophecies: Investigating Supernatural Signs, Apparitions, and Miracles in the Modern Age'' is by a journalist John Thavis and published by reputable publisher, Viking, so yes, a reliable source.Slp1

WEBSITES
 * Rome Reports
 * Crux
 * CNS Catholic News Services
 * Inside the Vatican

Approved use with caution
 * Oxford Encyclopedia of Religion in America, but I imagine from the title that it will only be telling part of the story (ie focused on American pilgrims?) so will have to be used with some care
 * Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje by Sandra L. Zimdars-Swartz gets very good reviews but it is now almost 30 years old, so quite dated. We could use, but obviously with caution
 * Medjugorje: Triumph of the Heart (revised) (1997) is published by Queenship Publishing Co - which according to the archives of the WP:RSN is reputable publishing house.[43] However, the author (and the publishing house) is clearly partisan, and very close to the topic she is writing about. It is also more than 20 years old. As such, the book can be used with some caution, not for anything controversial and with attribution: "According to Maillard..."
 * The Visions of the Children: The Apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje (2007) by Janice T. Connell is published by St. Martin’s Griffin/MacMillan [45], a highly reputable publishing house. As such it is a reliable source. However, as Governor Sheng pointed out, the author is not exactly 'independent'. We can use but with some caution.
 * Same author: Meetings with Mary: Visions of the Blessed Mother by Janice T. Connell 2015


 * The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena Gordon Melton, the author is an academic, and the publisher Visible Ink Press is reputable, so yes. However, note that encyclopedias of this sort are WP:TERTIARY sources; useful for some matters, but in general we should aim for WP:SECONDARY sources.

Not approved  BOOKS
 * Ogledalo Pravde (2001) is published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar, which from googletranslate is the Mostar Diocese/Bishopric (?). If that is the case then it is almost certainly not a "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as needed by the guideline. But I don't entirely understand the context that this document was published, so you could give some more details to help me understand, or you could check at the WP:RSN. However, in addition you describe this book as a compilation of "interviews and statements and added few comments on his own". That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS. Wikipedia requires us to be extremely careful which primary sources. Here the interviews/statements are not independent of the events for example. I agree strongly with avoidance of primary sources, as I have seen over and over again how (sing primary sources leads to misuse and WP:OR when editors pick and choose quotes etc to make a point that they want to make. Which leads to conflict!


 * Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud? (2011) seems to be self-published. The author, Donal Anthony Foley, appears to manage Theotokos Books which published the book As far as I can see, he is not " an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:RSSELF As such, the book is not a reliable source, unfortunately. As an addendum, he also seems clearly allied with a particular camp... not really independent/third party in an article where this is particularly important.

WEBSITES
 * Sarajevo Times

Not reviewed yet that I could find: Medjugorje and the Church, Denis Nolan, Publisher: Queenship Publishing Denis Nolan is the director of Queen of Peace Ministries, Notre Dame, Indiana. Queen of Peace Ministries sponsors the annual Medjugorje National Conference at Notre Dame University. Wikipedia guidelines:

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
 * A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[f] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[g]

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).
 * Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source.[h] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
 * Self-published sources (online and paper)