Jump to content

Talk:Pavol Hnilica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Governor Sheng (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 22 March 2022 (→Quoting & source problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC: Remove Yallop Allegation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's consensus to remove the Yallop allegation because only one person is making it. Some participants in the RfC indicate that their position would change if additional sources were found to be covering it. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Should the sentence reading "David Yallop claims that during the 1980s, Hnilica laundered money in and out of Medjugorje in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. " be deleted? He is the only one claiming this. Also Hnilica was not indicted for this. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may answer Yes or Remove to remove the sentence, or No or Keep to leave it in. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for.

Survey (Remove Yallop Allegation)

Threaded Discussion (Remove Yallop Allegation)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Restore Material on OLM

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus not to include these paragraphs in the form that they appear in this RfC. Several participants expressed that they might support a different formulation that was more concise and/or written in more encyclopedic language. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Should the following paragraphs be restored to the section on Our Lady of Medjugorje? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC) They were removed because an editor said he objected to the sources used.[reply]


In 1988, the pope, John Paul II, received a group of Croatian Catholics in his private chapel. Instantly he recognized two members of the group from photographs he had seen and approached them, observing, 'Ah yes, Jelena and Marijana, (seers of Our Lady of Medjugorje) who have the interior locutions.'" He greeted every person in the group and then returned his focus on the two girls, staring into their eyes for some time. Two years later in 1990 John Paul II dispatched his confidante, Bishop Hnilica, to accompany Marija, another seer of Our Lady of Medjugorje, on a visit to Russia; 'the bishop told her repeatedly how much the pope wished he could visit Medjugorje..."[1]

[leave existing material in place]

Franic wrote a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, on February 18, 1985, about his concerns regarding Bishop Pavao Žanić, who oversaw Medjugorje, and his approach to the situation in Medjugorje. He requested that the Holy See take over the investigation of the apparitions and appoint an international commission.[2]

In April 1986 Zanic went to Rome to submit his negative report of the apparitions to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was at the time Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[3][4] “Ratzinger summoned him to a personal meeting and reportedly chastised the bishop, telling him that he disapproved of his methods of investigation. Furthermore, the Prefect of the CDF ordered Žanić to suspend his negative judgment, dissolve his commission, and place the entire matter of the investigation into the hands of the Holy See.”[2] Zanic and his commission were released from any further investigations into Medjugorje. Zanic was also instructed to maintain silence about Medjugorje. The Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference was ordered to appoint a new commission under its direction.[2]

You may answer Yes or Support to restore the material, or No or Oppose to leave it out. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Randall (2004). The Miracle Detective. New York: Grove Press. p. 283.
  2. ^ a b c Klimek, Daniel M. (2018). Medjugorje and the Supernatural - Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 64–67.
  3. ^ Michaela Schauble, Narrating Victimhood: Gender, Religion and the Making of Place in Post-War Croatia (Bergahn, 2014), p. 119.
  4. ^ Pavao Žanić, The Truth About Medjugorje (English translation), booklet published in 1990.

Survey (Restore Material on OLM)

  • Conditional support I support this addition as long as it is made more concise and less authorial. ~ HAL333 17:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support adding both paragraph 1 and paragraphs 2-3 back in the article and agree that they need to be more concise.
However the source by Bishop Pavao Žanić should be removed. Zanic was not independent and was directly involved in the Medjugorje apparitions. He was the bishop of Mostar-Duvno and apostolic administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan from 1980 until his retirement in 1993 and oversaw Medjugorje from when it began in 1981 until his retirement.
The other three sources are independent, reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
If there is a bias according to WP:BIAS ..."reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." It is suggested if there is bias that "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate."Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for you, Governor Sheng, please follow the formatting rules for talk pages. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we should of have done evaluation of sources first. I'm not in support of discussion like this. The question is about sources, not about the paragraphs. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Instantly he recognized two members of the group from photographs he had seen and approached them, observing, 'Ah yes, Jelena and Marijana, (seers of Our Lady of Medjugorje) who have the interior locutions.'" He greeted every person in the group and then returned his focus on the two girls, staring into their eyes for some time.... tfw? That's a nice... example of an encyclopedic article... you've got there. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The paragraphs are not encyclopedic. Rewrite them to a more concise encyclopaeidc version and then get an opinion on them if you want to include something about this. Aircorn (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the rationales above. Sea Ane (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion (Restore Material on OLM)

I object to this part of the discussion. The issue is not whether the paragraphs should remain, but whether the sources used are reliable. This is the first issue. If the sources are reliable, and they're not, I don't have an objection to leaving those paragraphs within the article. But because the sources received negative peer reviews and are biased (they were characterised as such by peer reviewers [1], [2], [3]), I oppose the inclusion of these paragraphs. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quoting & source problems

Governor Sheng, I made my corrections and along the way I found these that need correcting:
1) This one needs attribution for a direct quote: "Hnilica was a center of the contested network of Marian apparition movements.:[1]
2) In the Yallop source, it says Hnilica continued the tour - but here you wrote that it ended.
"However, Hnilica's and Lopez's project ended with Archbishop of Denver James Stafford's pronouncement that the visions are not of supernatural origin."[citation needed]
3) This one needs a citation and attribution for a direct quote:
On March 9, 1994, Archbishop Stafford issued the following declaration: "On December 9, 1991, I appointed a commission to investigate alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Mother Cabrini Shrine and other places within the Archdiocese of Denver to Theresa Antonia Lopez. On February 22, 1994, the commission completed its investigation and presented its findings to me. As Archbishop of Denver, I have concluded that the alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Theresa Antonia Lopez are devoid of any supernatural origin."[citation needed]
There might be more that need correcting, I encourage you to look it over.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it was you who used a direct quote. I originally used the phrase "Hnilica lead the contested network" etc. This is just a minor part of a major issue u have with plagiarism.
I don't want to fight with you. I just want the pages to be truthful. I looked at the source that you left there. You might want to look yourself. I am completely over my error of sourcing. I was mistaken with no ill intent. In the process of correcting my own errors, I found yours. Please correct them.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some parts had sources, but you miraculously deleted them (not your first time), so God knows now what sources I have used there. Will need to check it out and use it again. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again I don't want to fight with you. When I was going over pages, using sources that you have placed here. I found discrepancies of what you took from the source vs what was actually in the source. It was repeated many times and some of those I have placed on the talk page as an example. I am hoping that we can work together to bring the whole truth to these pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What's the difference between "being at the centre of the contested network" and being "a leader of the contested network"? What I was doing with quoting the sources is paraphrasing them. That's what one is supposed to do instead of plagiarize them. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Hermkens, Jansen & Notermans 2009, p. 194.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pavol_Hnilica&oldid=1078689023"