Talk:Frane Franić

Bringing information from the Croatian page

I discovered this page on the Croatian site and am bringing over more information including the two photos. Wikipedia translated the whole page to English. Let's work together on this page in harmony. I noticed you took out a good amount of information that I put back in using the Croatian site as my guide. Let me know if you see a problem but please do it here. thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please supply the reference you used by Ramet.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC) And the reference for Šimundža 2007 Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC) @Governor Sheng: Also please clean up the names in red by removing the brackets.Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I'll add full references soon. I believe we can find common ground and cooperate well. The reason I deleted those parts is that they seem very disconnected, and hard to read. Plus they're unreferenced. I wanted to find some info on his early life and education with good sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: Thank you for posting the references. Please now provide links to the references so I can read them specifically by Ramet.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ramet, Šimundža, Buchenau. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Croatian wiki... It seems to me that the previous version of the article was a translation of the Croatian one... :/ Thus, I don't see a reason why should we use Croatian wiki as a guide, when the English version actually looks better, even as of now. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. It's funny how Dražen Kutleša will become Franić's successor. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussions as of 4-18-21

Wikipedia likes things to be concise. This is a biographical page about Franic and it should be focused on him. Long historical commentary is not appropriate here. We need to trim it way back especially the last historical paragraph that you just added.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you. We can trim the article later. Let us first evaluate what is and what is not essential. For example, I think some background is needed for why Franić insisted that the Church of Split should become an archdiocese and in the end why he died as an archbishop rather than bishop. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is that important?

I put back my post and changed it little. I am going to add to that section including Fatima. Leave it as it is. Also the photo date was incorrect. There is no way that photo could be from 2000 since he retired in 1988. I just deleted the year 2000. I also like having photos to break up the straight line, they are more visible as well and it is much more pleasing to the eye. Also Franic is not a communist. Not sure where you got that idea. I read and reread the pages in Ramet and fixed the text to reflect what is in his book. He was talking about the Church being heirarchical not democratic. If the US was purely democratic, it would be majority rule but our country is not democratic but is a Republic. Can you imagine the church being majority rule?! Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Buchenau but I am unable to read it through Amazon or Google Books - please supply the link where it can be read.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I brought the second intro paragraph to discuss here please give you viewpoint.
He is regarded as one of the most controversial Croatian bishops for inter-church conflicts and his Christian-Marxist and ecumenical initiatives. ** I don't see this sentence reflected in the body of the page with a reference

Franić belonged to a group of conservative prelates willing to engage in a dialogue with the communist government. **Correct according to Ramet

As an archbishop in the communist Yugoslavia, Franić promoted a dialogue between Christianity and Marxism, ** Correct according to Ramet

entering in conflict with the Archbishop of Zagreb Franjo Kuharić who was an opponent of the dialogue. **I read in Ramet that he was actually open to dialogue but didn't trust the communists. That would not be in conflict with Franic

He viewed liberal democracy as a danger to Christianity because of its secularisation tendencies.

• from the book: Hostile to democratic and progressive currents that emerged out of the second vatican counsel as well as to Western Democracy which he views as the breeding ground of secularism. Franic defined the church as a heirarchical community of faith hope and love.

Franić was the most prolific bishop in Yugoslavia during communism. **is this reflected in the body of the page with a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs)

The mentioned parts, that are not in the body of the article, are from Buchenau's book and will be added to the article. Regarding images, once again, please read WP:SANDWICH. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder I need access to the Buchenau's bookRed Rose 13 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to help you. But I'm not able to. I can translate you certain exceprts from the book, but cannot scan any particular page do to copyright. Thank you for understanding. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It is best to talk before constantly changing a persons edits. (1) Franic on the contrary did support other Marian apparitions and I wrote in the editing comment that I would be adding them soon. (2) The photo with Pope John Paul II was not from 2000. Whoever posted that had the year wrong. Franic retired in 1988 and full 12 years earlier. We should be placing photos up in the body of the page not shoved to the very bottom. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A retired bishop is still a bishop, and can visit the pope like any other person. His official Instagram (run by his legal successors) states that the meeting took place in 2000. [1] Franić is also very old in this photo. He writes in 2000, recalling his previous meetings with the Pope (maybe because he was about to meet with the Pope that very same year), that he met the Pope in February 1981 and somewhere in the 1970s. The photo is clearly not from that period. It must have taken place somewhere after he wrote about his meetings with the Pope, either in 2000 or later. Another proof for that is a photo uploaded to Franić's official website in 2017, I assume from the same meeting he had with the Pope. This photo, also from the same meeting, is clearly from the 2000s. Pope John Paul II here is very weak and can barely walk, Franić a fragile old man. The photo is clearly not from the late 1970s nor from the 1980s. It's from Franić's post-retirement period, and I believe the description is correct, that the photo was taken in 2000, or even later. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a note. I warn you against using WP:SYNTH. It seems to me that you tried to synthesize several sources to make a conclusion about Medjugorje here. Franić is nowhere mentioned in the context you wrote about. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect regarding SYNTH. This is an encyclopedia and we are expected to educate as we go. I placed the quote from Bishop Franic and he mentioned Lourdes & Fatima. So I added one to two sentences explaining them with a wiki link to the article themselves. I didn't write a full paragraph for each as it is not necessary. However that is what you do. If you don't stop chopping up what I write and allow a discussion, I will be reporting you. I am not going to warn you again. I have not gone in and cleared out half of your over wording and unnecessary wording but have asked you to do it. Also if you have time to add things to this page, you have time to clean out the tremendous excess. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Franić also spoke of self-mangaing socialism, but that doesn't mean that we will write about that form of socialism on the article about him. This is clear nonsense. He wasn't involved in Lourdes or Fatima, but exclusivelly in Medjugorje. Pleasae, report me. Do me a favour. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I need to read all the sources you post. If you use Croatian sources, it makes it extremely time consuming to do this. I notice many times that your interpretation of what was being said, is different from what is there. It seems to me you have an agenda to make all the people associated with Medjugorje look bad. It is your focus it seems. I am tired of running after you and correcting things.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Medjugorje Messages Are Supernatural" What kind of source is that? Can't even google it. There's no author. Voice of Peace from NYC is the publisher. Can't even google them... It's funny to see you arguing for "reliable sources", and then come up with this shit. Nevertheless, I hope to see a bunch of Jews on a ship promoting the Medjugorje apparitions, though sadly, I believe it's not the same Voice of Peace. Anyhow, you're making an article out of some random quote about something just so you could rename the section as "Marian apparitions". Am I understanding you well? This is the proof Franić was involved in other apparitional business as well? --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I updated the source. I read the guidelines on wikipedia and if you are writing about a person, you can use their website information in the article as was done on the Vlasic case. I first used the journal that was mentioned on his website but I can instead just use the website.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That is good. Use the website. However, there's no need to explain what Fatima and Lourdes are. But on the contrast, there's a need to explain why Split became an archdiocese, since it directly matters to the person of Franić. However, who appeared in Fatima and to whom is of little interest for Franić's biography. You're giving a background for a random statement. If we use that practice as a general rule, we'll have to back up every single quote given by Franić about almost anything. This will lead us nowhere. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Every Croatian source you bring to a page, you need to provide a link to where we editors can read it. It is not our job to search around the internet for the link. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't make up the rules. I don't need to provide you with any link. Per WP:NON ENGLISH, "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". I won't be providing you any links in future. You can forget that. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I spent hours fixing the Medjugorje section and I added new information from the source Parlov. DO NOT REVERT. Bring any issues here so that we can discuss it. In many places I used the source you provided. Assume good faith WP:GOODFAITHAssuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning and Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, do not misrepresent the sources, which you usually do. The episode about the process against him was Franić's claim, that cannot be confirmed by other sources, and it should be presented as such. On the other hand, you're presenting it as an undisputed fact (a clear violation of WP:NPOV). Parlov's book speaks about his claim in the context that he considered it as a fulfillment of a supposed prophecy conveyed to him by Pavlović. For example, your input of the first part of the sentence "he wasn't dismissed", is a clear example of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, claiming something the source never explicitly said. I spent hours researching Parlov's book and you just rearranged the entire section. Please, bring your proposals to the talk page before changing anything. More so because you do not speak Croatian and you're using google translate to contribute. This needs to be checked and your translations cannot be trusted. This is so, because, even I do assume WP:GOOD FAITH towards your editing, me knowing (in your own words) that you're not speaking Croatian (and a history of WP:ORGINAL RESEARCH and breaking WP:NPOV) gives me a strong reason to be skeptical about your edits when using non-English sources. In conclusion, even I assumed good faith, I still have a valid reason to ask you to present your translations on the talk page before doing any editing. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious that you did not review all of my edits. Before you make accusations, and before you begin edit warring, read each change I made. I explained them. I am using Bing & google translate to read the Croatian sources and it works just fine. Here is only two direct quotes I used: Please check it out in your resource - "became one of the greatest, probably the most important, apologists of Medjugorje" by expressing his "superior knowledge of mystical theology and unwavering conviction in the authenticity of the Medjugorje phenomenon". and this one "rapprochement with the liberalising Titoist self-management socialism." I returned a quote from a reliable source that you deleted. I took out words that don't follow this guideline MOS:WTW. and other improvements. I worked on the page for five hours to improve this page. If you apply the rule to bring all changes to any page to the talk page then that rule applies to you too.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

When editing, make sure not to make literal translations due to possible copyright violations and do not misrepresent the sources, especially about the alleged 1986 process against Franić. Possible copyright violations are to be reverted immediately (per Wikipedia:Copyright violations). Please be very careful about copyright violations, since you're using Google translate to make edits. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Before reverting edits and starting an edit war, I suggest you look at each edit. Like I mentioned above I made a number of improvements that you blanket reverted. I have you the two direct quotes for you to verify. Did you do that? Are they ok? If not I will remove the quote marks. Please translate those passages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I just added some of the edit I did in my 5 hour block of time for editing that had nothing to do with translating. I will bring those here to discuss. Also here is a guideline that I discovered that eliminates words that indicate a bias. MOS:WTW This includes words like claim, alleged and any words that indicates how the editor feels. I plan to replace those words with neutral words. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Using this guideline I replaced the words claim and alleged with neutral words shown on this page MOS:CLAIMRed Rose 13 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The translations are okay. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I just returned one of the edits you reverted. Please let me know what you think. I took the information directly from the source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I added back in another of the edits that were deleted and did it according to the source. What do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The source itself uses this context [2], so I will too, 'cause it obviously makes sense, especially knowing that other authors have made links (example Margry). On the other hand, your insertions of paragraphs on Lourdes and Fatima are an example of WP:SYNTH and no serious scholarly source makes this connection. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I go to the source your provide and read it. Your word condemnation is not what was said. the word banned was used. Stop reverting my edits and bring your concerns here. I am not making up words I use the sources.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I just spent a good amount of time writing about the seer and brought in another reference and then we cross edited and I lost it all. I will have to re-create the whole thing so be patient.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Not my fault. Just scroll down when this happens, you'll have your changes pending there. P.S. I do love how you trie to waterdown every fringe cult there is. In the end, the article is not about the cults, and I'm sure this unnecessary bunch will be deleted after Wikipedia:Peer review. :/ --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The first section is about MEdjugorje - I moved the discussion that you started and I completed to the end.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You did it very poorly. The new section you created, for the purpose of promoting your POV is obviously incorrectly titled - "Marian apparitions", while the content is about freaking Vissula the Mystic. Second, it is stated that this is Rendić's comment, so no effing need for you to emphasize how the chapter was titled, because it stabs you in the eyes. Nobody does this. Get yourself together. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The chapter was titled "Opinions and reactions - The articles in this section express personal views with which the editorial board may or may not agree." Because the section she expressed her opinions in is called Opinions and reactions and you won't allow the title, it is important for the reader to know it is not fact but is her opinion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! Stop pretending to be a greater Catholic than the Pope, as the saying goes. You don't speak Croatian. Read the whole thing. The peace was issued in 2013, well later after Rendić died. They included her letters. It's clear that the stated is her opinion... since the sentence starts with "Rendić said". Tfw is happening to you... --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussions as of 2/6/22

This page has too much information that is not about Franic. I plan to clean it up and read every reference for accuracy but just about Franic.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is out of context. Please bring the whole paragraph to the talk page thank you. Franić said that the Council "condemned godless communism, but it opened the doors to a dialogue with Marxism".[17] Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Also this sentence seems off to me. Please provide the whole paragraph around these words from your source. "Franić advocated a Christian-socialist alliance against the West." Otherwise we will need to delete it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we will not delete a damn thing. --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I found the sources myself. These two sources seem biased to me when it come to the authors opinions. We need another source that is viewing this from a different angle as well to bring balance.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Governor Sheng - I am forced to read every single reference you use Which takes a very long time to do and below you can see why.:
The sentence on the page: Although other supporters of Christian-Marxist dialogue, like Tomislav Šagi-Bunić opposed any alliance with the communist, Franić advocated a Christian-socialist alliance against the West.
The sentence from the source: There was no consensus among the Catholic dialogue partners on political objectives. "While Šagi-Bunić is decidedly against any alliance of Church and state and called for an ideologically neutral, rule-of-law, Franić sought a Christian-socialist alliance with an anti-Western character," according to Bucheanu"
When it come to controversial posts, we need to use the direct quote. In this one we need to say according to Bucheanu because it is his opinion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is another one It seems you insert your own POV opinion in some of your edits:
The sentence originally on the page: Franić defined the church as a hierarchical system which is not democratic.
The sentence from the source: Franić defined the church as a "hierarchical community of faith hope and love."Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You didn't cite the whole source, once you do that, everything fits as it should. For exampe, Šagi-Bunić is described as a supporter of a Christian-Marxist dialogue on the same page, if I remember correctly, not specifically in this quoted sentence. That aside, yes. You are supposed to read every source I add, and no, it is not my obligation in any way to provide you with quotes for sources you can check yourself nor (!) are you entitled to delete certain paragraphs YOU (!) consider to be inadequately quoted or whatever. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)