Talk:Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne

message: I do not think the article is objective, for it is biased against Cardinal Cipriani and his membership with Opus Dei. 
The first paragraph says it all: "for which he has gained some notoriety." As if to justify this assertion, the length of the portion on criticism is even longer than the rest of the article. No mention is made whatsoever about the positive contributions of Cardinal Cipriani on the church and the faithful in Lima. Despite the sympathy of the press for Cardinal Cipriani during the difficult hostage-taking at the Japanese embassy, his positive participation therein elicited only a single statement that "he ministered to the Japanese and Peruvian hostages." 
I suggest that this article, which is really more of an unprofessional and amateurish potshot at Cardinal Cipriani, be totally revised. It should merit neither space nor attention of this sort in Wikipedia. Contributors should aim for excellence, objectivity, and accuracy by presenting both sides of the picture. 
Rrcs law (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity

message: This article has two totally contradictory paragraphs on his famous statement on human rights.  The first reads
Cipriani Thorne is infamous in Peru for once saying "Los derechos humanos son una cojudez" ("human rights are bollocks"), by which he meant some secular and, in his view, radical understandings of human rights. Like the broader Catholic Church, Cipriani Thorne is acutely aware of some of the potential or actual incompatibilities between some contemporary understandings of human rights and the Christian worldview.
The second says
Cardinal Cipriani never said "Human Rights are bollocks". What he said was "La Coordinadora De Derechos Humanos es una cojudez", or "Human Rights Coordinator is a bollock". Coordinadora De Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Coordinator) is a NGO which is in fact an organization composed of people with leftist tendencies.
Either he said "los derechos humanos son una cojudez" or he didn't.  It can't be both ways.  I notice that Mario Vargas Llosa says he did say it in Caretas.  Does anyone know if Llosa was correct?  --Descendall 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I know this'll seem extremely lame, I've removed all of that since NONE of it was cited. 68.39.174.238 03:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of a "bullocks" in a translation from Spanish is certainly odd.  This source discusses the controversy over whether he actually said it:
http://www.yodash.net/2010/02/la-coordinadora-de-derechos-humanos-esa.html
It seems that what he actually said was a criticism of the absence of the director of Human Rights (And I translate this with a machine translator, since I am not fluent in Spanish and wouldn't trust my own translation): "I have come to in front of the poor and those who have been killed in this city ( Ayacucho ) . And during this chaos, I have not seen the Coordinator of Human Rights, this lunacy."  This seems as though he was far from siding with the denial of human rights, as he was accused of, but actually condemning the lack of protection of human rights from the government.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.24.246 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on human rights

message: I thought it strange that Cipriani Thorne should be called "the first declared member of the Opus Dei to be made a cardinal". He is certainly the first member of Opus Dei to be made a cardinal. What is the value of the word "declared"? Anonimus 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. His membership to the "Opus Dei" is one of the most used arguments against him. Messhermit 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership of Opus Dei

message: Content added by  has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 13:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright cleanup