::::OK, all that is understandable and understood, but not accepted as rebuttal of my comment. When "consensus" has been reached and a wearisome discussion settled, that should not necessarily be treated as binding for all time. The Medjugorje example was merely about spelling, and due to the transliteration explained in the footnote. It is not a good precedent for the article here, but there may be better ones. Outside the world of Wikipedia, after a lapse of time, for one reason or another people are able to have second or further thoughts, instead of stubbornly sticking to a position merely because they were on the "winning side" in a stale controversy, which sometimes need never have occurred.  Why should we not let this happen here: consider this relatively trifling tweak afresh on its actual merit, from the point of view of communicating factual information to readers?