Talk:Tomislav Vlašić/Archive 1

Archive 1

"alleged prophecy"

"There he was told by Sr. Briege McKenna, in an alleged prophecy" Who alleged this? There is no source. ps I don't understand the business about peer review. When I click on that link, there is nothing with his name. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reworded the line and added two sources.--Bistropha (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"There he was allegedly told by Sr. Briege McKenna and Fr. Emiliano Tardif in a prophetic message that Vlašić would become the center of a great movement with the help of the Virgin Mary.
Moved sentence here in the hope that someone may explain who allegedly had this vision. McKenna?, Tardif? Vlašić himself? Manannan67 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• p.s. -there is no indication to what "Rooney & Fancy, 1984" refers. Manannan67 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The references for this line were formerly documented fully in this article, but apparently some information got lost when the citations were converted to short format. Here is a revision to restore the references and clarify the actions of McKenna and Tardif.

• • There he met Sr. Briege McKenna, who told Vlasic that she had a mental image of him seated and surrounded by a great crowd, and from the place where he was seated streams of water flowed. At the same event, Fr. Emiliano Tardif spoke a message to Vlasic as a prophecy: "Do not fear; I am sending you my Mother."

• • This looks clear enough, so I will place it back in the article. --Bistropha (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia Guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons

This notice below was placed on the page when editing. Just with a quick glance I am see many poorly sourced "references". Someone needs to delete those references and replace with high-quality sources. See the discussion on the talk page of Our Lady of Medjugorje. Also someone forgot to add the Peric source to this article. To see the links just go to the article and click edit.

"Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page." Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ok I am removing this reference. Caldwell, Simon. "Sex, lies and apparitions". The Spectator. (1) It is just an essay with no references (2) In order to read it, you have to buy a subscription (3) Simon Caldwell no longer works for The Spectator. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not removing anything. The Spectator is a reliable source. (1) Irrelevant, it's an article. Magazines do not use sources like scientific papers do. (2) Not true, but if true, again irrelevant. (3) Irrelevant. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

We will need to review all the references here once the Medjugorje page is finished. Also what book was used for Laurentin 1987 - no source was given as well as Peric - there is no source. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll give them for the review immediatelly. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: There. Enjoy yourself. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: So here is what other users think about the disputed sources you challenged - [1]. My suggestion is that we attribute the authors only when some controversial statements are made. Basic facts like "Vlašić was ordained a priest on 10 December 1980" do not need to be attributed. Or you think otherwise? --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slp1: I am including you in this discussion in the hopes of your guidance/correction as necessary.

@Governor Sheng:Thank you for posting this. I brought the one editors, Fences & Windows, comments here as a reminder to us as we edit.
"I can see a general issue with independence of the sources. Crisis Magazine is a Catholic publication, so should be attributed due to this COI. The Spectator article discussed on the talk page seems OK to use, though the author Simon Caldwell has worked for the Catholic church so should also be attributed: [213]. On the books/journal, Laurentin is a supporter of the Marian visions and Perić and Kutleša are local Catholic bishops, so are not independent and need attributing. Irish Times is fine."

I think anything taken from these sources should be attributed... even facts. The pages should not be filled with these sources. They should only be added sparingly. From what I understand Wikipedia wants reliable secondary sources as the primary sources on its pages. Here is the link to attributions [2]

Another important point is mentioned above and posted to this very article, regarding living persons or recently deceased people -
"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see [WP:BLPSPS] and [WP:BLPSELFPUB]. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article"
This whole article needs to be cleaned up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As said in Wikipedia:Citing sources#In-text attribution

Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

Y The sun sets in the west each evening.

So no, blatant facts shouldn't be attributed. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

True but only if everyone knows the facts you are referring to.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Does the sentence "According to Kutleša, Vlašić was born on 20 December 1930" sound a bit off? It's like Vlašić is an obscure 12th-century chap. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, just for the conversational purposes, you consider this to be a reliable, independent source [3]? Just checking you're not being borderline hypocritical again. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been re-reading the article and made a couple of changes. The section Belief System is way too long. I think it should be at the least cut in half if not more.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The book Mary Queen Of Peace. Is the Mother Of God Appearing In Medjugorje? to me falls into the category of using with caution and as needed. Kutlesa is used unnecessarily on this page and should be taken out in a number of places especially when other reliable sources are used.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Why Kutleša should be taken out? On the contrary, he should be kept. Moreover, the claims from his book are supported by additional sources. He is used as a reference four times. Three of the statements supported by him are non-controversial. The possible controversial one, the one claiming the seers had full confidence in Vlašić and everyday contacts with him, is supported by Vlašić himself. This is pretty much a non issue here. So your proposal is out of touch. The book "Mary Queen of Peace"... Who's the author? What are his credentials? Who's the publisher? The book is way too old. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop with your nonsense

@Red Rose 13:, familiarise yourself with the subject you want to edit, otherwise, you're just being disruptive.

Mnoge su me osobe i dalje tražile. Primao sam ih u mojoj privatnoj kući i u kućama Fondacije „Utvrda Bezgrešne“. Pojašnjavam da je gore spomenuta Fondacija osnovana 2005. godine, ne od mene nego od strane privatnih osoba koje su smatrale da trebaju pridonijeti širenju moga djela. Više nisam pohađao javna mjesta bogoštovlja. Nisam nikoga tražio, ali sam sve prihvaćao, jer sam smatrao da je to moja svećenička dužnost. Trebam iskreno reći da je ne mali broj osoba koje sam susretao izrazio sve veću nelagodu ne samo u vezi s onim što se događa u svijetu, nego i u Katoličkoj Crkvi. https://premanovomstvaranju.org/2020/10/27/moja-svecenicka-sluzba/

--Governor Sheng (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vlasic's church

You are right I should have brought it here in the beginning. Paragraph from the page: In 2005, Vlašić founded a society of believers inspired by the Medjugorje apparitions. His society gained permission from the Bishop of Brescia Giulio Sanguineti to open its headquarters in Gheda near Brescia. However, Vlašić states that this society, called "The Fortress of the Impeccable" wasn't established by himself, but by other people keen on spreading his work. Here are the exact words in English from the reference you placed there: "In the town of Ghedi near Brescia, Vlašić and his associate Stefanija Caterina founded the community "Church of Jesus Christ of All the Universe" which also has its own website."[Pročitajte više na: https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/laznog-franjevca-iz-medugorja-opet-izopcili-iz-crkve-iz-vatikana-tvrde-da-je-opasan-1440699 - www.vecernji.hr]

For the 2nd sentence, I just read through your reference claiming "The Fortress of the Impeccable" was the name and I found absolutely not one word about "The Fortress of the Impeccable". Read it yourself.

So in conclusion this is all that can be on the Wikipedia page. In 2005, Vlašić founded a society of believers inspired by the Medjugorje apparitions. His society, Church of Jesus Christ of All the Universe, gained permission from the Bishop of Brescia Giulio Sanguineti to open its headquarters in Gheda near Brescia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, ma'am, read the source - I left a link for you in the section above. Vlašić and his partner founded the society, the Church, yes, but in 2018. The society established in 2005 is a different one. Your conclusion is poor. I'm not impressed.

This leaves me with a conclusion I need to make simple to you. Tomašević from Večernji list mentions a society established in 2005 but doesn't name it. Vlašić, on the other hand, speaks of the same society, and discovers its name for us - "Fortress of the Immaculate". Now, Tomašević, at the bottom of his article mentions completely another society - a church - but he doesn't mention the year when it was established. Vlašić does. He says the church was established in 2018 and registered in 2019. Now, logically something that's established in 2018 cannot be established in 2005. You just need to read things first, think about what you read, and then use your keyboard. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have gone through both references and the only thing I found from the past is this: "In 1987, I founded the "Queen of Peace, completely yours - through Mary to Jesus" community, which was later dissolved." [4]

You will need to prove this "The Fortress of the Impeccable" is mentioned in these references which I have already gone over with a fine tooth comb. It is not up to me to prove it. If you can't, we need to remove the reference and the sentence. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you freakin' blind? Here's the quote from the article.

In 2005, Vlašić founded a society of believers inspired by the Medjugorje apparitions. His society gained permission from the Bishop of Brescia Giulio Sanguineti to open its headquarters in Gheda near Brescia.[9] However, Vlašić states that this society, called "The Fortress of the Impeccable" wasn't established by himself, but by other people keen on spreading his work.[13]

No. 9 reference is Tomašević of Večernji list; no. 13 reference is visible in the section above. If you click on it in the article it will lead you to this link - https://premanovomstvaranju.org/2020/10/27/moja-svecenicka-sluzba/. I'm really astonished by your behavior! This conversation because of your inability to cope with some basic stuff is getting really tiresome. Again, for Heaven's sake, read what I write. Think about what you've read, then use the keyboard. And no, I will not remove anything from the article just because you cannot cope with some pretty basic stuff. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Governor Sheng Assume good faith. I have been working on Wikipedia for 7 hours straight today. I reviewed the link in even more detail and here is what I found:

• In 1987, I founded the "Queen of Peace, completely yours - through Mary to Jesus" community, which was later dissolved.
• Many people were still looking for me. I received them in my private house and in the houses of the Fortress of the Immaculate(not Impeccable). I clarify that the above-mentioned Foundation was established in 2005, not by me but by private individuals who felt that they should contribute to the dissemination of my work.
• From the beginning of 2017 and during 2018, through the messages of the 13th of the month, Our Lady spoke extensively about God’s life and his people of the entire Universe, presenting herself as the Mother of Humanity.
• Thus we come to May 20, 2018. The new people are now ready to announce to the world the existence and operation of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Universe
• On May 20, 2018, explicitly by the Lord's will, we publicly announced the existence and operation of the "Church of Jesus Christ of the Universe" on Earth. [11] From that moment on, I always introduced myself to those who listened to me as a priest of the "Church of Jesus Christ of All the Universe." I will continue to do so, in accordance with the authority given to me by the Lord Jesus and his people.
• In 2019, this Church founded an unrecognized non-profit Association called the "Church of Jesus Christ of All the Universe", according to the laws in force in the Italian State.

Three different things: ,
(1) 1987 Queen of Peace, completely yours - through Mary to Jesus" community, which was later dissolved
(2) 2005 Fortress of the Immaculate (not Impeccable)He saw people in the houses of the Fortress of the Immaculate Conception Foundation apparently donated by supporters in support of Vlasic and his work - sounds like a community.
(3) 2018 Church of Jesus Christ of the Universe - He officially established this church in 2018. On their website I found this as well under About Us #2 - The Foundation, “Fortress of the Immaculate”, where two young women consecrated themselves, was founded in 2005. It was founded by the inspiration of some people who, following Father Tomislav and Medjugorje, encountered God and changed their life through the apparitions of Medjugorje; thus, they decided to donate part of their property to create this Foundation in order to divulge and promote Mary Most Holy’s thoughts that She expressed in Medjugorje. Pretty straight forward. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We will need to rewrite those two sentences the VL article was in error.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

VL wasn't in error, you were. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Primary sources and contentious statements

Sources that have already been established on the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page that are not reliable and too close to the subject are listed there and discussed there. Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje You are using some of those in this article and that is some of what I was correcting and some times actually found a better reference and replaced the unreliable ones. All you had to do was read my comments as I made the edits. I am going to be putting much of it back in. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines of Living Persons

Please see the guidelines on pages for Living Persons. Very important Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to follow this strictly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources removed

Rather than revert GSheng's revert again. I am listing the reliable sources and words he just deleted. One needs to go through the revision history to see it:

• <ref name= "Maunder">Maunder, Chris (2016). Our Lady of the Nations - Apparitions of Mary in Twentieth-Century Catholic Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 161–162.</ref
• <ref name=”Sullivan”>Sullivan, Randall (2004). The Miracle Detective. New York: Grove Press. p. 120.</ref

If one looks through the revisions and claims, he used about 4 spacers in Croatian for some reason, here is one example that I translated:
uređajima što često može dovesti do različitih distrakcija te problema (Davie i Hilber, 2017).
devices which can often lead to different distractions and problems (Davie and Hilber, 2017) Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Clean up, restructuring

• cleaning up by following the Live People guidelines
• restructuring according to date order
• sentence structure
• punctuation
• adding new information with secondary reliable sources

Etc... Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You forgot:

• Deleting embarrassing, but still well-sourced information. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It is clear to me you didn't even read the improvements I made. I also notice you reverted it all back to your previous version. I don't need to ask permission to edit on this page or any other page when using excellent reliable sources. And I will be asking for help on these pages. If you would have read the page before reverting everything you would have noticed I did not delete the embarrassing FACT that he had an affair and made a nun pregnant. I structured the page in date order of when things became known.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am asking you to return all the information I added with excellent sources back into the article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am now adding back in the words with reliable sources that you removed. Each edit has written explanation included. I will only do a few edits each day so it is easier, Governor Sheng.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Using Primary unreliable sources

There is a discussion here [[5]] about sources that we have been instructed not use on these biographical pages. I copied and pasted part of it here @Slp1::

"As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life.Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

Today I removed primary sources and placed citation needed or a secondary source as necessary. I also removed unnecessary gossipy statements. Following the guidelines set up on the Lady of Medjugorje page as stated above.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

How is Kutleša directly involved with Medjugorje? --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, do you have a general idea what a primary source is? You're distorting Slp's comment by trying to expand his characterisation of some sources used at the article about Vlašić to Kutleša and other authors. This is plainly wrong. Primary source is a historical document, a book using that document is a secondary source. I'm astonished. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Kutlesa

• From my understanding because he was a Monsignor for the Catholic Church and what he wrote was published by the Catholic Church, that makes he[[6]] and his document a compromised source (Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar). Here is the pdf of OGLEDALO PRAVDE [[7]]
• (1) He prepared this document for the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje, Prepared by Don Drazen Kutlesa - in other words he was working for the Episcopal Ordinariate of Mostar.
• (2) BISHOP'S ORDINARY MOSTAR - THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE - Preparation and syllable :Don Drazen Kutlesa - this is the Bishops version of Medjugorje
• (3) Ratko Perić, the Bishop, wrote the conclusion of the document not Kutlesa. It is a product of the Bishops who is directly involved as well. Kutlesa just did the preparation of what he was given by the Bishop. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw, Here is the link explaining Wikipedia guidelines on Primary & Secondary sources WP:RSPRIMARY. Your links don't relate to Wikipedia guidelines and just a link to the definition on Wikipedia itself.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Important to read for living persons: WP:SOURCE and WP:BLP and Self-published sources WP:BLPSPS

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. Someone being a monsignor of the Catholic Church doesn't mean anything. However, your hypocrisy allows you to, while claiming Kutleša is partisan because he's a Catholic priest, use Klimek, also a Catholic priest, as a source and to claim that Klimek is an independent source. This doesn't make Kutleša's book "a compromised source", but it could make a person using this line of argumentation a "compromised person", or a hypocrite.

(1) He didn't prepare the book for the Ordinariate, but for the general public. This is only your interpretation of his words, which cannot be interpreted as such by anyone with a bit of common sense and basic knowledge of the Croatian language. Do you speak Croatian or are you using Google translate? "Priredio/pripremio [name of the author]" is rather translated as "edited by" in English. This is because his book contains interviews and documents from other authors besides writings of his own. One must remain astonished by your silly argumentation.

(2) Kutleša's book being the bishop's version of the book is again, only your interpretation of the book's content. Bishop Ratko Perić didn't edit the book. He is the author of few chapters, which doesn't influence Kutleša's credibility. Co-authorship is a normal thing. The person of the bishop is one thing, the Episcopal Ordinariate is another. A bishop with his personal name is a physical person, while the Ordinariate is a legal entity that exists whether there's seating bishop or not, or if the bishop is John Johnson or Peter Peterson. The Ordinariate is always the same. It's like claiming the books published by the Oxford University Press are all influenced by the seating president of the University or director of the Press. This doesn't make any sense.

(3) Same thing. The bishop can edit or write few chapters of a book, which can be edited by someone else. The book, however, isn't the product of the bishop.

Your pointless arguments aside, I can conclude that you also distorted WP:RSPRIMARY. First, you wrongly concluded that Kutleša's book is a primary source, which by any definition it's not. Then, secondly, you concluded that it, as such, cannot be used on Wikipedia because it breaks WP:RSPRIMARY. It's like me saying Charles Charleson (in reality a fellow human) is a dog, therefore, he's not allowed to walk on the beach because there's a sign that forbids entry to dogs. That being said, all your silly arguments that are connected to WP:rsprimary like WP:DOB and so on, are baseless. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, it might interest you: "primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts..." Like a birth date or transfers? [8] --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you taken the time to read the Living Person page?

Bishop Peric wrote the conclusion for the whole paper that Kutlesa prepared, It is published by Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar

Bishop's Ordinariate, located in Mostar, is the seat of Bishop of Mostar-Duvno Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bishop's Ordinariate building is the seat of the bishop, yes. There's a building in Mostar that is called Bishop's Ordinariate, because their offices are there. Just like the building of the Oxford University is the seat of the president of the Oxford university. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have giving you 3 links now and here is a 4th No Original Research - WP:NOR Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This applies to your "sources". There is a lot to learn on Wikipedia. I recommend you do your reading and research.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this your actual other Peric reference? [[9]]