Talk:Juan Diego

Expansion

ALERT - since all these comments (bar the last two under section 16) relate to the previous article, can everything not now be archived?Ridiculus mus (talk)

I'm writing an expansion of this from reports in the press and the WWW. — Toby 16:28 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

I'm done writing, so feel free to edit again. Next stop: Our Lady of Guadalupe. — Toby 19:09 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

I'm going to list the sources for my August 1 expansion:

• The Los Angeles Times, August 1, 2002, pages 4 and 5.
• A Dallas Morning News article on the historicity of Juan Diego, translated and reprinted on the front page of the July 26 issue of La Prensa, a Spanish language newspaper local to the Inland Empire (California).
• The Catholic web site listed as an external link in the article (at least at time of writing), with a grain of salt.
• A few Google searches on items mentioned in these sources.

— Toby 01:05 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

Cuauhtlatoatzin

What part of "Cuauhtlatoatzin" means "eagle"? There's a bird called "hoatzin", but it is totally unlike an eagle. -phma

"Cuauh" is the root of "Cuauhtli", eagle. "Tlatoa" means "to speak", and -tzin is a honorary suffix. --Mixcoatl 19:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's what it says at http://www.sancta.org/juandiego.html . That site accepts claims so uncritically that I didn't want to come out and say that that's what the name means, which is why I phrased the sentence as I did. But if you know better than they do, then by all means fix the translation; and if you're sure of it, then by all means change the phrasing of the sentence so that it's clear that the translation is indeed correct. — Toby 21:27 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Conversions

Much of Mexico's indigenous population is converting to Protestantism - much of it is reverting to native religions, as well, feeling that they better represent their culture. -- Zoe

The LA Times article that was the source for my Protestantism comment didn't mention this (which I found personally disappointing), but if it's true, then by all means add it in. — Toby 01:05 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

My source was a television report by one of the LA news people in Mexico during the Pope's visit -- I think he was from Channel 2, but I'm not sure. -- Zoe

Are you putting it in the article? Or do you not trust Channel 2? (I have no opinion, I don't watch TV.) — Toby 06:43 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

I didn't want to add something on the basis of one half-listened-to news report. If we could find more documentation ... -- Zoe

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juan Diego. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005105416/http://www.virgendeguadalupe.org.mx/santuario/pindios.htm to http://www.virgendeguadalupe.org.mx/santuario/pindios.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection please

I want it projected so nothing dumb happensLoganTheWatermelon (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed "Indigenous rights" section

@AnandaBliss: not only did I agree with your assessment that the section ran off-topic, but when I investigated the sourcing, I found nothing but WP:PRIMARY sources cited for what is clearly original research. So I had no choice but to remove the section entirely. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia; if there is to be some kind of analysis of Pope St. John Paul the Great's homilies, then it needs to come from a scholarly source, not a Wikipedia editor making things up. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph that was deleted citing John Paul II's words during the canonization of Juan Diego does not appear to be a violation of either of these wiki-standards. The remaining paragraphs seem off-topic for the page, barring them having been somehow referenced by John Paul II himself in that work, or if Juan Diego is specifically mentioned (which I don't think is the case as they seem to be documents from Vatican II or other Encyclicals about justice, which are too general for an article about Juan Diego).

The opening of the paragraph in question would have to be reworked as it seems to have more of a narrative than encyclopedic style.

It would not be a violation of Primary as the Vatican's account of what the Pope said is not contested by anyone, so its hard to see how a claim of presenting a biased take of the event where he said these words is a worry for this article. Recall the wiki-standard is not an utter ban on primary sources, rather the worry is about presenting subjective and contested accounts as objective fact.

The publishing arm of the Vatican is seen as a reliable source about what the Vatican and the Pope say (the standard is reliability which is not exactly the same as scholarly).

--Wowaconia (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Thanks for your further assessment. I do think that this saint's status as one of the first Indigenous of the Americas is interesting, but, as you said, secondary sources and a discipline of topic are needed. @Wowaconia:, The Vatican's publication would be considered a primary source. Even if it's not a biased or low-quality take (I have no reason to believe that it is), it is still Primary, it is still subjective. There may well be articles or research in existence that analyzes this, but the original research that was there before wasn't up to Wiki standards. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph that was deleted the wiki-editor who wrote it says "to have their cultural traditions and way of life honoured and protected against encroachment." I don't see this supported by the quote by John Paul II given, which doesn't mention cultural traditions at all. Barring it being in JP2's statements elsewhere in the text cited, the claim is an OR Synthesis or OR Analysis that isn't supported by the text cited. If the paragraph is to be restored that claim would have to be dropped or further support for that reading of the text put forward.

A good faith argument could claim that when JP2's talk about the need for South America to preserve its indigenous people this includes cultural elements that might be considered definitional to them - but this could be contested as it could also be read as him calling on nations to merely not harass them. The definition of what is meant by "cultural traditions" would also have to be laid out, as it would be contested if these include elements from ancestral religion. --Wowaconia (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)