|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
I'm writing an expansion of this from reports in the press and the WWW. — Toby 16:28 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)
- "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)
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
Merger of sections
Should the sections of Historicity debate and Historicity arguments be merged? They seem as if they are the same topic of questioning the historicity of the event and therefore should be merged because the two sections are basically the same topic in my opinion. Doing so would make an easier and clearer read for the viewer. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't the section on "Earliest published narrative sources" in the Our Lady of Guadalupe article, rather than this one?
I can see the relevance of the two "Historicity" sections, I guess, but it seems like the long discussion of published narratives relates more to the overall Guadalupe cult and less to Juan Diego himself, and therefore should be in the other article with maybe a brief summary here.
- I suppose they are so interconnected that by talking about one you're also talking about the other. The emphasis does seem to be on Our Lady of Guadalupe rather than Juan Diego though. I would not be opposed to a merging, although the text here seems to be quite detailed so I'd hate to see that content be lost. Sizeofint (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, I agree it's very detailed, I am not in a rush to merge it. I just happened to look at these pages to read up on the feast which was yesterday, and got quite lost in the maze of detail which seemed to go more to the apparition than to Juan Diego himself, so I wasn't sure I was fully understanding the situation. If I have a chance to look at it in more detail down the road, maybe I will; otherwise if anyone else reads this and is moved to attempt some better organization, please feel free :) TheBlinkster (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)