Talk:Valladolid debate

message: A caricature of cultural history. Not worth working on. --Wetman 08:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 months later and it's not much better. I removed these substantial sections as unsourced speculation, but I hesitated to delete them entirely, so I moved them here. If someone could provide sources for any of this feel free to add it back in, but as is it reads like unbacked apologetics that has little to do with the actual debate. (I bolded the section headers, I didn't know what else to do.)--Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The removal has improved the article - better for it to stick to its immediate subject  Provocateur 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prologue

message: It is hard to believe the beginning of this article. I'm sorry to cite wikipedia in spanish, but we have put this: 
* No discurría en torno a si los indígenas de América eran seres humanos con alma o salvajes susceptibles de ser domesticados como animales. Eso hubiera sido herético, y ya estaba resuelto por la bula papal Sublimis Deus (1537). Algunas veces se entiende esta bula como respuesta a opiniones que pusieran en entredicho la humanidad de los naturales; pero el papa (Paulo III, incitado por dos dominicos españoles) no pretendía definir la racionalidad del indígena, sino que suponiendo dicha racionalidad en cuanto que los indios son hombres, declaraba su derecho a la libertad y la propiedad, así como el derecho a abrazar el cristianismo, que debe serles predicado pacíficamente. El propósito declarado de la discusión era ofrecer una base teológica y jurídica segura para decidir cómo debía procederse en los descubrimientos, conquistas y población de las Indias.
In my bad english: not about indians was humang beings with soul... that should be heretic, and already resolved by papal bula Sublimus Deus 1537... The proposal of the discussion was offer a safer teological and juridic base for... conquer.
Please, change.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy seems to be right. First of all, different wiki pages say different things about who won the debate. This guy says there's no reliable record of a resolution. And Sublimis Deus did establish full humanity of the natives. See Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda for the perspective that it was about Aristotle's concept of "natural slaves," not an issue about souls. Jonathan Tweet 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article cites no references, I added factual accuracy and unreferenced tags. Hopefully someone can sort this all out.--Cúchullain t/c 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one reference that looks pretty good and modified the text to match. I wouldn't mind if someone triple-checked me. Jonathan Tweet 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some work on the article based on the source you provided. I also removed the tags. Thanks for finding that and amending the text, this was an embarassment before.--Cúchullain t/c 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the changes, the article is well enough now. Perhaps you must add a link to Leyes de Burgos that talk about the Junta de Burgos, the precedent of the Junta de Valladolid in 1511. If you want improve more the article, I suggest add images (in spanish we have put three with comments very ilustratives, in my opinion). I dont dare doing myself.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about souls?

message: De Sepulveda was not a Jesuit. He may have been a Dominican. The Spanish side about him says that. My professor told me that he was a normal diocesan priest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.136.132 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was neither, he was a jurist and theologian, but not a member of any religious order.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesuit 

message: This is a straightforward issue (without comment on the validity of the opposing viewpoints). WP:BURDEN, an en-wikipedia policy, states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. Therefore it is up to RafaelMinuesa to defend his/her edits by providing direct sources before they can be reinserted into the article. For example, a reliable source that clearly states that the 'protector of the Indians' office was a direct result of the debate and not an existing office prior to it, and explains the contradiction (that the office existed before as well) is necessary before that can be included in the article. --rgpk (comment) 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, RegentsPark. That is most helpful.--Cúchullain t/c 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I've marked the following passage as promoting a non-neutral viewpoint:
"The arguments presented by Las Casas and Sepúlveda to the junta of Valladolid remained too abstract, with both sides stubbornly clinging to their opposite theories that ironically relied on similar, if not the same, theoretical authorities, which were interpreted to suit their respective arguments"
The loaded language, I hope, speaks for itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.238.84 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concluding paragraph