This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juan de Zumárraga article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Juan de Zumárraga is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
The current article is a bit of a whitewash. A good deal of evidence exists that Zumarraga was personally responsible for the destruction of thousands of indigenous (Aztec) books and manuscripts in a fanatical attempt to destroy all traces of the existing religious culture.
Crelake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It is a straight lift from the Catholic Encyclopedia with only one sentence omitted (it should follow the reference to the arrival of the new Audiencia in December 1530, with Gúzman avoiding arrest only because he was then absent in Sinaloa): "According to ancient and constant tradition it was at this time (12 December, 1531) that the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe took place." I can't see on what grounds that mild reference was omitted and I propose to restore it in due course.Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to rewrite this article completely based on better sources than the Catholic Encyclopedia - and the apparition of the virgin will not be included, except maybe to mention the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that Zumárraga ever had anything to do with it. ·Maunus·ƛ·01:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the justification for that. The sentence I was proposing to add back in simply refers to the "tradition", which is a matter of fact. As for Zumárraga's alleged incendiarism, it would appear that Joaquín García Icazbalceta long ago demolished the argument that he had any responsibility for the mass burning of native texts, although he may well have ordered the destruction of more durable monuments.Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not really any justification for including mention of the traditional date of the apparition in this article unless it is to suggest that it has some relevance to the biography of Zumárraga. Zumárraga, was protector of the indians but also inquisitor witht he responsability of punishing heresy, he burned more than just books - for example Don Carlos Ometochtzin. ·Maunus·ƛ·02:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is all very well to say "for example Carlos Ometochtzin", but wikipedia seems not to know of any other case, and for a 16th century inquisitor to condemn only one person (if indeed he did condemn that one, as to which I know nothing) is probably an indication that he was not a genuine firebrand.Ridiculus mus (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic Encyclopedia drew on the standard life of Zumárraga by the said Icazbalceta, and on MENDIETA, Historia eclesiastica Indiana (Mexico, 1870). What sources have you in mind for your wholesale re-write? Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By implication you seem to condemn Icazbalceta as "apologetic" and somehow unscholarly, which would be unjust. I am beginning to wonder what you mean by "apologetic" here and elsewhere. If I am to attempt a re-write of Juan Diego under your watchful eye, it would help if I knew what you have in mind when you use that term.Ridiculus mus (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not working under my watchful eye especially - but under the watchful eyes of all other editors interested in the topic. I wouldn't count Icazbalceta as "apologetic" - Mendieta I would. But if Icazbalceta has indeed cleared Zumarraga of charges of book burning, then I assume that he was simply wrong on that account - since newer scholarship does not sustain that conclusion. Indeed it would be strange if he did not burn indigenous books - doing so was simply standard policy - protecting the indians did not mean protecting their cultural heritage in the fifteenth century - it meant protecting them from their cultural heritage. But I will start looking into the newst sources on Zumarraga's life when I am done with Bartolomé de las Casas (almost done) and Vasco de Quiroga and Nuño de Guzmán (only just begun). If you want to start working on the Zumarraga article before I get around to it you are more than welcome. ·Maunus·ƛ·03:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me, for it is certain that you will be closely watching my re-write of Juan Diego and you are seemingly wedded to a dichotomy between "academic/ scholarly/ scientific" and "apologetic" which I do not, as yet, fully understand. For my part, I have no particular argument with the existing drift of the Zumárraga article, but I was merely pointing out the curious fact that someone had gone to the bother of deleting an unexceptionably worded sentence which places the tradition of the Guadalupe event in the context of Zumárraga's life. From whatever angle you view it, that tradition is an overwhelmingly significant cultural given, and a biography which ostentatiously ignored it would be Hamlet, if not without the prince, then at least without the ghost. Ridiculus mus (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
