This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Junípero Serra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 24, 2018 and November 24, 2019. |
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
This article does not adhere to Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality, as it reads for the most part (I made a few edits for balance in the lead) like a long promotional brochure. Marcywinograd ( talk) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Would someone directly involved with the writing of this article consider a better wording for this? The religious overtones are too obvious. Besides, for the non-religious reader it sounds plain ridiculous.
I was not involved in this but but more on mortification can be found at /info/en/?search=Mortification_of_the_flesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drockstroh ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Junipero Serra was not Catalan, but he was born in Mallorca Island, Balears Islands, Spain.
Should Junipero Serra be Canonized after information has been brought up about him enslaving the Native Americans? I would like to hear some opinions.Pleeeaaase!!!!!!!!!!! - Blessed Sacrament School in Newark, Ohio
Junipero Serra "enslaved Native Americans"? Pleeeaaase!!!!!!!!!!! The worst thing he did from our modern perspective and based on evidence, not unfounded assertions, was okay corporal punishment for Native Christians who broke the rules. According to Dan Krieger, professor emeritus of History at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo thick whips of cord were used (Santa Maria Sun, Sept. 1, 2015). In other words, they were publically shamed by flogging. Capital crimes were handled by the civil authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC10:6D10:226:8FF:FEDC:17C1 ( talk) 00:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"The chapel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, ... Known proudly as 'Father Serra's Church' "
"Known proudly" by whom?
"Besides extraordinary fortitude, his most conspicuous virtues were insatiable zeal, love of mortification, self-denial, and absolute confidence in God. His executive abilities has been especially noted by non-Catholic writers. The esteem in which his memory is held by all classes in California may be gathered from the fact that Mrs. Stanford, not a Catholic, had a granite monument erected to him at Monterey."
This entire paragraph seems a bit... fawning. I suggest it be removed until the information can be rewritten NPOV. Dmw 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As a Spanish born man. The name given to him by his parents was Miguel José Serra Ferrer. Not Miquel Josep Serra i Ferrer as stated in the article. By checking the wikipedia of the same topic in the spanish speaking version of wikipedia the name is Miguel José Serra Ferrer.
Mike Dillon, the dichotomy is between Catalan and Castilian, not Catalan and Spanish (as far as nationalities go). As for Majorcans considering their language Catalan, you might want to brush up on that (go to Mallorca, for instance). Anyhow, as far as his name and nationality goes, we shall stick to the facts. Fansites can make him as Spanish, Catalan or Majorcan as they wish in their own time.
I really doubt anyone born in Majorca in the year 1713 would have his name given in Castilian, so his correct name would be "Miquel Josep Serra i Ferrer". Also, the practice of joining both lastnames with "i" is alive and well in Majorca today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.99.38 ( talk) 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This article strikes me as distinctly one-sided. There's only one sentence mentioning any kind of controversy surrounding his actions, and a lot of the article borrows heavily from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry. (This is not to say that this isn't a valid source, but it is likely to take one side over the other.) Growing up just south of San Francisco I've heard Father Serra's name many times, but rarely (maybe never) without a discussion of his treatment of Native Americans in the area. Regardless of how you feel, I think intellectual honesty demands a section on the controversial nature of his methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.70.7 ( talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article takes a distinctly one-sided perspective, almost completely ignoring the controversy about Serra and the indigenous populations that he "converted." At the very least, there should be more than one source for this article. A major source for the controversy is Daniel Fogel's book, "Junipero Serra, the Vatican, and Enslavement Thology.
Rossmanc (
talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that what he did to destroy the Indians' lifestyle, impose physical labor on men who had been hunters and warriors, enslaved an entire people, the result of which was near-genocide, and calls it "discomfort" and then says this is merely a modern controversy has neither brains nor empathy. You see your entire people and way of life destroyed and then decide whether it's only important to people two hundred years down the road and only causes "discomfort." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.250.166 ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"Indolent hunters and gatherers", "heathen", sounds like skewed Catholic teachings to me. This article is completely one-sided. And we *do* analyse the motivations of historical figures based on the information we have, specially when they are involved in enslavement and genocide(e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizarro, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot). The article omits all discussion on his role in colonization and seems to be cleaned up to validate the current discussion of canonization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.176.176 ( talk) 09:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is incredible...
This standard of 'it was OK at the time' could be applied to any historical crime...including the extermination of the Jews in Hitler's Germany...
The wiping out of indigenous society, religion, culture, language and physical extermination on the North American continent stands as one of the darkest episodes of human evil in recorded history...never has such a genocide taken place on such a massive scale and for so long...
Besides the moral emptiness of 'Magi's' position...there is no veracity to it either...to say that the views of the catholic church at the time represented the general moral standard of that time or that the actions of its officials was somehow 'not controversial' in the broader sense of human society of that era is simply idiotic...
This historical era was known as The Enlightenment for good reason...see Voltaire...and quoting here the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry...was known for 'his attacks on the established Catholic Church, and his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state...'
So much for the specious argument 'it was OK at the time'...it was not OK then...and it is not okay now to pretend that it was......Q,E.D... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.54.41.9 ( talk • contribs) May 6, 2017
History Prof here My student and I were cruising this page just to get a sense of what Serra's bio looked like re: the folks who would go on to be known as 'Mission Indians.' We were, honestly, shocked by some of the bias evident in this article. The refusal to acknowledge that forced labor+no freedom of movement=slavery is a bit grating and is a stellar example of many such moments in this text, some of which have been highlighted by previous commentators. Another moment is the line "Serra successfully resisted the efforts of Governor Felipe de Neve to bring Enlightenment policies to missionary work, because those policies would have subverted the economic and religious goals of the Franciscans." That would, um, be like saying that "Confederates unsuccessfully resisted the efforts of Lincoln to apply the Enlightenment to African residents of the southern states." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.183.72 ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the title of "Fra"? I'm not familiar with this honorific and have only known Serra as "Father". Mazeau ( talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fra is not a misspelling of Fray. It's the honorific in Catalan, rather than in Spanish (castilian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.196.219 ( talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is now only one sentence long. What happened to the rest of the article? Can someone revert it back? Fatrb38 ( talk) 07:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If he died of a snake bite, it should be in the article - I removed the category because I couldn't find any reference in the text. Totnesmartin ( talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What kind of name is Josep? Majorcan? I think this edit needs a citation before it's allowed to stand.-- Magi Media ( talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
All accounts that I have read on Serra that will say his given name or name of baptism pronounce him as "Miguel Jose." The name Josep is a name of Catalan, but there is no account other than this one that calls him "Miquel Josep." So, there is the question: does "Miquel Josep" translate into "Miguel Jose?" And which was he actually named at baptism. If his mother language is Catalan, was he called Miquel Jopep or did he assume the more properly Spanish name of Miguel Jose? If this is just a matter of semantics possibly both names can remain in the article since after all that he assumed the name of Junipero.-- Magi Media ( talk) 19:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Note number two reads, The name Miquel Josep can be qualified in this article if he was named in the Catalan tongue. This translates into Miguel José in Spanish. The real case would rely on his name given at baptism. I can almost guarantee that the name on his baptismal certificate was in Latin. So I guess his "real" name was Michael Joseph (or, less likely, Michael Josephus). Rwflammang ( talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
InFairness ( talk) 10:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on "Genocide" is barely related to the life of Junipero Serra (like the statistic about the size of the Indian population in 1821 - that's almost 50 yrs after Serra's death). It's more of a condemnation of the missions in general, or Christian evangelization in general. It should either be connected specifically to the life of Fr. Serra or moved to a more appropriate article. SHarold ( talk) 07:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The section on genocide is poorly sourced, riddled with patent factual errors, and is the product of OR, SYN, unbalanced, has undue weight and engages in POV pushing . Accusing a figure of genocide is a serious claim. Per Wikipedia policy it requires serious sourcing. It is axiomatic on Wikipedia that exceptional claims require exceptional sources:
See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. [Emphasis added]
The first source is posted on a PBS website which bears no author name, no footnotes and no bibliography or references. (It appears to be based on or derivative of work by the author Costo, addressed below) It is plainly woefully inadequate for a claim of this type. As noted per the policy above, above “the material should not be included”.
The second source deals with the death count of Indians through 1821; this despite the fact that Serra died almost four decades earlier. This is using SYN and OR to tie Serra to four decades of deaths that occurred while he was not even alive. I haven’t checked the source but I would not be surprised to find out that the fact asserted in the article doesn’t even refer to Serra. Another problem with the source is that it doesn’t have a page cite to allow for verification, rather it references a page range of over eighty pages. Again, as noted per the policy above, above “the material should not be included”.
The third source, Overland Monthly, does not even mention Serra’s name. It is unequivocally OR and SYN and should be removed.
Finally, there is the issue of genocide. Scholarly consensus is that genocide requires genocidal intent (See Genocides in History). The scholarship not only on the California Missions but specifically on Serra shows no genocidal intent but just the opposite – the record is replete with his (and his sucessors’) concerns about diminishing native population. Which brings us to the problem with the use of the claim of genocide in this article. Not even a single reputable scholar in the area of genocide studies has ever accused Serra of genocide. It is a fringe theory: " For a particularly biased attack against the Franciscan missions, see Rupert Costo and Jeannette Henry Costo, The California Missions: A Legacy of Genocide (San Francisco 1987) The title is especially misleading, and we agree with James Axtell, who writes that 'only the rare certifiable homicidal maniac sought to commit 'genocide' upon the Indians…' The missionaries, even more so than the settlers in colonial America had no desire to have Indians die, since their goal was to gain converts and sustain the missions by an assured labor supply." Hence, no genocidal intent. This is plainly a fringe theory. Per Wikipedia policy this material should not be included. Barring some support, I'm going to delete it. This is not to say that valid properly sourced criticisms of Serra, properly weighted, should not be included in the article. That is not what we have currently. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week and no one is addressing the substance of my objection to the inclusion of this material. Since no substantive discussion has been brought to support it (sorry, "I like it" is not real discussion of the issues), I'm going to delete it. Mamalujo ( talk) 21:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Tinker is mentioned by name [4]. And I'm sorry, but you are wrong that all of them must be mentioned by name to cast doubt on their reliability. Clearly, the source is saying this small group of attack dogs who throw historical accuracy to the wind are not RS. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Stannard and Churchill, see Couve de Mourville´s book on Serra, pages 127-130 on the topic of genocide. A totally false reference is given by Stannard, then reproduced by Churchill, regarding Serra being so cruel that he had to be restrained from hanging Indians.
Stannard refers to Palou´s ´Noticias de la Nueva California´ in the English translation by H. E. Bolton, published in 1966. An idea of the shoddy scholarship by these people is that the incident they bring up does not involve Serra at all, but a certain Count de Galvez, a visitor to the mission, who became enraged when the Indians stole some of his equipment and, as Palou describes, had to be restrained by the friars. Somehow, Churchill and Stannard manage to confuse Count Galvez with Junipero Serra.
It is clear to anyone who has read Serra´s writings that these friars, whatever shortcomings they had (they tended to view the natives as grown children) were not in the business of exterminating Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.191.219 ( talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, only their culture and their legal title to their own land. 68.14.145.238 ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I read all of the talk and agree with Will Beback. Stating that a scholar is an unreliable source without having a reliable reference/citation to back that statement is silly. Regardless of how the Spaniard Missionaries perceived what they did - what they did constitutes genocide according to numerous scholars. These scholars statements have been cited in this article and the removal of their citations constitutes vandalism. Spaniard Missionaries literally enslaved indigenous people in California and destroyed their culture. Revolts were violently suppressed. I learned more about Junipero Serra and the historical context through the talk section by uncovering removed sources than I did in the article thanks to the work of Will Beback. It's certainly not NPOV to disregard the opinions of Indigenous People - especially since there is documented reference and citation of Indigenous People condemning Junipero Serra. Multiple perspectives should be considered in this discussion. Just because genocide happened before the term was coined doesn't mean it didn't happen. The historical context of Spanish colonialism doesn't justify or undermine what constitutes genocide. Some of Mamalujo's comments are absolutely ridiculous. This wiki article has many reliable sources in it: /info/en/?search=Category:California_genocide including another wiki /info/en/?search=History_of_enslavement_of_indigenous_peoples_in_California 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B13E:688C:D8C2:A5D5 ( talk) 15:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is woefully short of material on Serra's legacy, on the beatification process, or on the modern controversies.
That's from A Companion to California History. I think we could do well by using it or other reputable reviews to summarize the modern scholarship on this subject. Will Beback talk 23:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Stannard and Churchill, see Couve de Mourville´s book on Serra, pages 127-130 on the topic of genocide. A totally false reference is given by Stannard, then reproduced by Churchill, regarding Serra being so cruel that he had to be restrained from hanging Indians.
Stannard refers to Palou´s ´Noticias de la Nueva California´ in the English translation by H. E. Bolton, published in 1966. An idea of the shoddy scholarship by these people is that the incident they bring up does not involve Serra at all, but a certain Count de Galvez, a visitor to the mission, who became enraged when the Indians stole some of his equipment and, as Palou describes, had to be restrained by the friars.
It is clear to anyone who has read Serra´s writings that these friars, whatever shortcomings they had (they tended to view the natives as grown children) were not in the business of exterminating Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.191.219 ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What's with the term "Father Presidente" used at least twice to describe Serra? Shouldn't it be "Padre Presidente" or "Father President" (or may be "Father Presider")? Why mix the English and Spanish? It seems contrived and touristy. Rwflammang ( talk) 22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
When Serra came to Monterey, California, the first Church he founded was San Carlos the Presidio chapel ( which is my church). After that the mission was relocated to Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo. They are two different Churches, but in the article, they are mixed up a couple times. -Its probably no big deal but since im from the area i thought i should mention this. 76.102.61.23 ( talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Proffessor Dr. Wienerman. 1/30/11
Sorry father Serra was born in Petra, Majorca, Spain. On November 24, 1713 (this year is the 300th. since birth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.63.47 ( talk) 13:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Father Serra learned different kinds of langereges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.228.4.251 ( talk) 02:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In Wikipedia articles, the names of priests should not be preceded by the title Father. Note this guideline concerning use of Father as a title:
Father
Use the Rev. in first reference before the names of Episcopal, Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests. On second reference use only the cleric’s last name. Use Father before a name only in direct quotations.
(Source: Religious titles | Religion Stylebook -- http://religionstylebook.com/entries/category/religion-and-culture/titles) Mksword ( talk) 09:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Encyclopædia Britannica (2010)
- World Book Encyclopedia (2015)
- Encyclopedia Americana (2003)
- Compton's Encyclopedia (1996)
- Encyclopedia of World Biography (1998)
- Encyclopedia of Religion (1987)
- New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition (2003)
- Catholic Encyclopedia (1912)
- New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st edition (1967)
The officials who just petitioned Pope Francis to canonize Junipero Serra pronounced his name with the soft "j" that you would expect. The only people pronouncing it with the "xu" sound seem to be the ones tripping over his name. Is there any documentation about the pronunciation of his name, because what's listed in the article seems to be incorrect, based on what we are hearing today. Trumpetrep ( talk) 20:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for calling attention to this, Trumpetrep. The article lists two pronunciations, English and Spanish; I seem to be the only one talking about the English pronunciation so I moved it to a separate section. The article currently lists the English pronunciation as /dʒuːnɪˈpɛroʊ ˈsɛrə/, starting with a dʒ - "as in jam". That is dead wrong. No American, of any ethnicity, pronounces his name with a J as in Jam. Americans pronounce it with an H, as hoo-NIP-uh-row. I'm guessing we need a source for this, since this is OR from me, but I think others will confirm it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
If there really is some evidence showing that Serra's converts were either sham converts made by intimidation or fraud, or there is evidence that Serra himself was some kind of demented sadist; or that he molested Indian women and boys under his authority; then I for one would like to know about it. That would be utterly damning and certainly grounds for denying him veneration.
But I haven't seen any to date. Only a lot of loose talk about the undisputed fact that he used corporal punishment against his indian converts. But I haven't seen any evidence that he didn't use the same methods against himself and the whites under his authority as well. It was a commonplace of his era. His one great sin would be gross insensitivity to the Indian culture where such methods were considered both cruel and intolerable; and which indeed led to several revolts in the missions, and to the death of both indians and missionaries. Probably he is still doing time in Purgatory for that.
But not for corporal punishment: "If you endure punishment, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not discipline? But if you are without correction, of which all have become partakers, then you are bastards and not sons." Hebrews 12:7-8
It's so hard to be politically correct ahead of your time.
IMHO he was doing the best he could according to his own lights, and those of his times. Perhaps I should stop reading Shakespeare on account of he was both a racist and an anti-Semite, as appears from his plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.79.232 ( talk) 05:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
By the mid-eighteenth century witch-hunting was considered a symptom of mass hysteria at best in the enlightened portion of the Western world and yet Serra was apparently pursuing it with a vigor that would have pleased King James, who may have seen a production of "the Scottish play" and approved the portrayal of the Weird Sisters some hundred and fifty years earlier. How many women died because of this sort of paranoid fanaticism and how much persecution of this sort might Serra have been responsible for? To me this guy sounds like a real piece of work and the political correctness here lies in the desire to find a minimally acceptable Latino who worked within current U.S. borders to canonize, rather than someone who might have actually behaved the way most people think of (a) Christ as behaving. As for Shakespeare, no one is making it an article of faith (yet, I think) that Bill has the ear of the Almighty,that burning candles to him will have an effect on one's sciatica, or that his legacy is one of simple, unalloyed, and uncomplicated good for the Christian faith and yet another uplifting chapter in the history of the Western conquest of the Americas (see "The Tempest" or better yet give it a close reading.) But of course if you think Shakespeare must have been a racist, an anti-semite, and a murderer because he created characters who were racists, anti-semites and murderers then you are probably one of those people who think Nabokov was a paedophile who is currently enduring an otherlife somewhere even less comfortable than Purgatory. So is Serra in in heaven or only halfway there? I suspect that to a certain degree he's still in California, which has sheltered many a zealot since his day and that many a zealot will appear at this site to defend his legacy in a manner almost as atavistic as a witch-hunter in the Age of Reason and perhaps even enough to make his tormented (or blessed) shade sigh in approval.
68.14.145.238 (
talk) 01:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change covert to convert.see this line in article: The new mission lacked Indians to covert. should be: The new mission lacked Indians to convert.
2601:602:8402:118B:0:0:0:5A94 ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The 48th citation URL has a typo. It should be http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/s_z/serra.htm, not http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/peoples_z/serra.htm. Millennial Dan ( talk) 02:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Please reader WP:OR, specifically, this part: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are taking material from one source that says Lara is gay, and a second source which says Ride is gay, and combining it with yet a third sources that says Lara proposed a bill to replace Serra's statue with Ride's to imply that the motivation for doing that was Lara's sexual identity. WP:SYNTH doesn't get any worse than this. Bad Dryer ( talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, now that we have reliable sourcing, I propose to add this sentence to the article: "Lara, who is gay, praised Ride as the first American woman in space and as a role model for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. [2]"
OK with everybody? -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: not sure who that "purposely obtuse" reference was towards from user DD2K. But as an admin, maybe you should let the user in question know that it is not at all civil? Do you think it advanced this topic or discussion? Trinacrialucente ( talk) 01:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC) @ MelanieN:Also, I'm fine with your edit...however I would caution to add "openly gay" (not just gay) since a) that's what the articles say and b) you wouldn't want anyone coming after you saying you were trying to "out" him. Trinacrialucente ( talk) 01:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Not that your suggestion is not pretty good, but perhaps a little better to work in that fact that young girls can look up to Ride and be inspired to do well in those subjects. Dave Dial ( talk) 02:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)“She was a hero and she inspired girls and women to pursue their interest in math and science,” said another lawmaker, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara)
A comment for all of you to share among yourselves: There is a lesson here, and it is this: Wikipedia is not a contest, with the goal of declaring winners and losers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with the goal of accuracy. Accuracy is determined by Reliable Sources, not by our opinions, not even by whether our opinions turn out to be right or wrong; see WP:Verifiability, not truth. The next time you feel like getting into an edit war over something, don't. Instead, go to the talk page and prove your point with independent reliable sources. And then share in the common task of putting something accurate and verified into the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories: People of Alta California and Californios? It was not native to California, is native to Mallorca. This category is only for the natives of that place.
Should Junipero Serra's baptismal name be written as Miguel, or Miquel? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 07:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Junipero Serra was born in Majorca, an island off the coast of Spain, in the 1700s. The native dialect on Majorca at the time was Catalan. Was his baptismal name Miguel (the Castilian spelling) or Miquel (the Catalan spelling)? Reliable sources are split regarding the usage; some sources use Miquel ( The Atlantic, 2015, Man of greatness: Father Junipero Serra, 1964), while others use Miguel ( California Catholic Conference, 2015, Junípero Serra: The Man and His Work, 1914)
I don't see any clear guidance in MOS:BIO on this point, and comments above suggest the "baptismal record" reference ( archived link) may not actually be a baptismal record. Due to the political situation in Catalonia, this risks having POV concerns. Thus, I am starting an RfC on what might otherwise be a minor issue. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The section Junípero Serra#King Carlos expels the Jesuits does not seem, from its present text, to have any connection whatsoever to Serra personally: it is more relevant to the history of Roman Catholic Missions in California generally. As the article notes, despite his connection to the Inquisition, Serra was a Franciscan, not a Jesuit, unless I missed something. Since this is an article about Serra and not the Missions in general, can someone make that section relevant, or should the whole section simply be deleted or transferred elsewhere? If transferred, to where? — KGF0 ( T | C ) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC) I would like to condense the section on his early life, as it is long and filled with extraneous details. Marcywinograd ( talk) 20:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Help is needed to add references to the article to support these points. Should it be "August 28" everywhere outside the United States, where it is honored on July 1? [7] Thanks. -- PFHLai ( talk) 02:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that the following additions be made:
Notes:
For needed citations for the first building, please look at archived Los Angeles Times articles that are suggested at the Pacific Coast Architecture Database website. The Water and Power Associates website has additional descriptions on Junipero Serra State Office Building #1 (1960-1999).
For needed citations for the second building, please use Google or look at the The Broadway#Downtown flagship store section for suggestions.
There might be enough information available to expand this into several paragraphs and create a new state office buildings section.
-- 96.64.134.61 ( talk) 23:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to contain a number of organizational and bias issues, which I propose we work on resolving. The most sensitive issue is, of course, those parts of the article engaging with his role in the Mission system. This article needs to be neither a systematic defense of Serra’s character nor a deliberate attack upon it. We need only let history speak for itself. To address the previously raised opinion that current morality cannot be applied to past examples, I reiterate that we as editors do have a responsibility to report in a neutral way upon the subjects of our articles. However, this means that we also have a responsibility not to defend Serra. To argue that Serra cannot be criticized for things that were widely accepted by Europeans at the time not only falls into the trap of moral relativism, but elides the fact that Missionization was widely unpopular among Indigenous Californians subjected to it. Such an assertion does not seem to me to be controversial in modern scholarship, and off the top of my head I can cite as evidence of this displeasure the regular confinement of and frequent attempted escapes by “neophytes”, as well as occasional revolts and individual rebellions. In any case, I like the way some of the “controversy” section is ordered, with representations of multiple viewpoints that are put in reasonably balanced dialogue with each other. I would very much like to see the same structure applied to the section on canonization, which currently contains only viewpoints from those who support it. As far as organization goes, I think that I would be good to have canonization as its own section, rather than a subsidiary of the “Treatment of Native Californians Section”. I also think that the placing of most of the content of this section under the label “Modern Controversy” implies that the activities he was involved in were uncontroversial at the time (and again, the issue is not whether it was uncontroversial among Europeans, but that it was generally opposed by Indigenous Californians at the time). There are, of course, many other parts of the article that could do with review, but I think that this will constitute a good start to the discussion. Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 04:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
zr4fx5 72.219.94.80 ( talk) 20:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we add the Representación to Wikisource? It is in the public domain, having been written in 1773. WaterAnonn ( talk) 20:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Controversy over the missions Serra operated" states that Mark A. Noll is a professor at Wheaton College. While he was faculty at Wheaton for many years, he moved to Notre Dame in 2006 and seems to still be there. Citation: https://history.nd.edu/people/mark-noll/ Noseybookworm ( talk) 18:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Junípero Serra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 24, 2018 and November 24, 2019. |
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
This article does not adhere to Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality, as it reads for the most part (I made a few edits for balance in the lead) like a long promotional brochure. Marcywinograd ( talk) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Would someone directly involved with the writing of this article consider a better wording for this? The religious overtones are too obvious. Besides, for the non-religious reader it sounds plain ridiculous.
I was not involved in this but but more on mortification can be found at /info/en/?search=Mortification_of_the_flesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drockstroh ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Junipero Serra was not Catalan, but he was born in Mallorca Island, Balears Islands, Spain.
Should Junipero Serra be Canonized after information has been brought up about him enslaving the Native Americans? I would like to hear some opinions.Pleeeaaase!!!!!!!!!!! - Blessed Sacrament School in Newark, Ohio
Junipero Serra "enslaved Native Americans"? Pleeeaaase!!!!!!!!!!! The worst thing he did from our modern perspective and based on evidence, not unfounded assertions, was okay corporal punishment for Native Christians who broke the rules. According to Dan Krieger, professor emeritus of History at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo thick whips of cord were used (Santa Maria Sun, Sept. 1, 2015). In other words, they were publically shamed by flogging. Capital crimes were handled by the civil authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC10:6D10:226:8FF:FEDC:17C1 ( talk) 00:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"The chapel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, ... Known proudly as 'Father Serra's Church' "
"Known proudly" by whom?
"Besides extraordinary fortitude, his most conspicuous virtues were insatiable zeal, love of mortification, self-denial, and absolute confidence in God. His executive abilities has been especially noted by non-Catholic writers. The esteem in which his memory is held by all classes in California may be gathered from the fact that Mrs. Stanford, not a Catholic, had a granite monument erected to him at Monterey."
This entire paragraph seems a bit... fawning. I suggest it be removed until the information can be rewritten NPOV. Dmw 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As a Spanish born man. The name given to him by his parents was Miguel José Serra Ferrer. Not Miquel Josep Serra i Ferrer as stated in the article. By checking the wikipedia of the same topic in the spanish speaking version of wikipedia the name is Miguel José Serra Ferrer.
Mike Dillon, the dichotomy is between Catalan and Castilian, not Catalan and Spanish (as far as nationalities go). As for Majorcans considering their language Catalan, you might want to brush up on that (go to Mallorca, for instance). Anyhow, as far as his name and nationality goes, we shall stick to the facts. Fansites can make him as Spanish, Catalan or Majorcan as they wish in their own time.
I really doubt anyone born in Majorca in the year 1713 would have his name given in Castilian, so his correct name would be "Miquel Josep Serra i Ferrer". Also, the practice of joining both lastnames with "i" is alive and well in Majorca today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.99.38 ( talk) 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This article strikes me as distinctly one-sided. There's only one sentence mentioning any kind of controversy surrounding his actions, and a lot of the article borrows heavily from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry. (This is not to say that this isn't a valid source, but it is likely to take one side over the other.) Growing up just south of San Francisco I've heard Father Serra's name many times, but rarely (maybe never) without a discussion of his treatment of Native Americans in the area. Regardless of how you feel, I think intellectual honesty demands a section on the controversial nature of his methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.70.7 ( talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article takes a distinctly one-sided perspective, almost completely ignoring the controversy about Serra and the indigenous populations that he "converted." At the very least, there should be more than one source for this article. A major source for the controversy is Daniel Fogel's book, "Junipero Serra, the Vatican, and Enslavement Thology.
Rossmanc (
talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that what he did to destroy the Indians' lifestyle, impose physical labor on men who had been hunters and warriors, enslaved an entire people, the result of which was near-genocide, and calls it "discomfort" and then says this is merely a modern controversy has neither brains nor empathy. You see your entire people and way of life destroyed and then decide whether it's only important to people two hundred years down the road and only causes "discomfort." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.250.166 ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"Indolent hunters and gatherers", "heathen", sounds like skewed Catholic teachings to me. This article is completely one-sided. And we *do* analyse the motivations of historical figures based on the information we have, specially when they are involved in enslavement and genocide(e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizarro, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot). The article omits all discussion on his role in colonization and seems to be cleaned up to validate the current discussion of canonization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.176.176 ( talk) 09:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is incredible...
This standard of 'it was OK at the time' could be applied to any historical crime...including the extermination of the Jews in Hitler's Germany...
The wiping out of indigenous society, religion, culture, language and physical extermination on the North American continent stands as one of the darkest episodes of human evil in recorded history...never has such a genocide taken place on such a massive scale and for so long...
Besides the moral emptiness of 'Magi's' position...there is no veracity to it either...to say that the views of the catholic church at the time represented the general moral standard of that time or that the actions of its officials was somehow 'not controversial' in the broader sense of human society of that era is simply idiotic...
This historical era was known as The Enlightenment for good reason...see Voltaire...and quoting here the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry...was known for 'his attacks on the established Catholic Church, and his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state...'
So much for the specious argument 'it was OK at the time'...it was not OK then...and it is not okay now to pretend that it was......Q,E.D... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.54.41.9 ( talk • contribs) May 6, 2017
History Prof here My student and I were cruising this page just to get a sense of what Serra's bio looked like re: the folks who would go on to be known as 'Mission Indians.' We were, honestly, shocked by some of the bias evident in this article. The refusal to acknowledge that forced labor+no freedom of movement=slavery is a bit grating and is a stellar example of many such moments in this text, some of which have been highlighted by previous commentators. Another moment is the line "Serra successfully resisted the efforts of Governor Felipe de Neve to bring Enlightenment policies to missionary work, because those policies would have subverted the economic and religious goals of the Franciscans." That would, um, be like saying that "Confederates unsuccessfully resisted the efforts of Lincoln to apply the Enlightenment to African residents of the southern states." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.183.72 ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the title of "Fra"? I'm not familiar with this honorific and have only known Serra as "Father". Mazeau ( talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fra is not a misspelling of Fray. It's the honorific in Catalan, rather than in Spanish (castilian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.196.219 ( talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is now only one sentence long. What happened to the rest of the article? Can someone revert it back? Fatrb38 ( talk) 07:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If he died of a snake bite, it should be in the article - I removed the category because I couldn't find any reference in the text. Totnesmartin ( talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What kind of name is Josep? Majorcan? I think this edit needs a citation before it's allowed to stand.-- Magi Media ( talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
All accounts that I have read on Serra that will say his given name or name of baptism pronounce him as "Miguel Jose." The name Josep is a name of Catalan, but there is no account other than this one that calls him "Miquel Josep." So, there is the question: does "Miquel Josep" translate into "Miguel Jose?" And which was he actually named at baptism. If his mother language is Catalan, was he called Miquel Jopep or did he assume the more properly Spanish name of Miguel Jose? If this is just a matter of semantics possibly both names can remain in the article since after all that he assumed the name of Junipero.-- Magi Media ( talk) 19:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Note number two reads, The name Miquel Josep can be qualified in this article if he was named in the Catalan tongue. This translates into Miguel José in Spanish. The real case would rely on his name given at baptism. I can almost guarantee that the name on his baptismal certificate was in Latin. So I guess his "real" name was Michael Joseph (or, less likely, Michael Josephus). Rwflammang ( talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
InFairness ( talk) 10:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on "Genocide" is barely related to the life of Junipero Serra (like the statistic about the size of the Indian population in 1821 - that's almost 50 yrs after Serra's death). It's more of a condemnation of the missions in general, or Christian evangelization in general. It should either be connected specifically to the life of Fr. Serra or moved to a more appropriate article. SHarold ( talk) 07:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The section on genocide is poorly sourced, riddled with patent factual errors, and is the product of OR, SYN, unbalanced, has undue weight and engages in POV pushing . Accusing a figure of genocide is a serious claim. Per Wikipedia policy it requires serious sourcing. It is axiomatic on Wikipedia that exceptional claims require exceptional sources:
See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. [Emphasis added]
The first source is posted on a PBS website which bears no author name, no footnotes and no bibliography or references. (It appears to be based on or derivative of work by the author Costo, addressed below) It is plainly woefully inadequate for a claim of this type. As noted per the policy above, above “the material should not be included”.
The second source deals with the death count of Indians through 1821; this despite the fact that Serra died almost four decades earlier. This is using SYN and OR to tie Serra to four decades of deaths that occurred while he was not even alive. I haven’t checked the source but I would not be surprised to find out that the fact asserted in the article doesn’t even refer to Serra. Another problem with the source is that it doesn’t have a page cite to allow for verification, rather it references a page range of over eighty pages. Again, as noted per the policy above, above “the material should not be included”.
The third source, Overland Monthly, does not even mention Serra’s name. It is unequivocally OR and SYN and should be removed.
Finally, there is the issue of genocide. Scholarly consensus is that genocide requires genocidal intent (See Genocides in History). The scholarship not only on the California Missions but specifically on Serra shows no genocidal intent but just the opposite – the record is replete with his (and his sucessors’) concerns about diminishing native population. Which brings us to the problem with the use of the claim of genocide in this article. Not even a single reputable scholar in the area of genocide studies has ever accused Serra of genocide. It is a fringe theory: " For a particularly biased attack against the Franciscan missions, see Rupert Costo and Jeannette Henry Costo, The California Missions: A Legacy of Genocide (San Francisco 1987) The title is especially misleading, and we agree with James Axtell, who writes that 'only the rare certifiable homicidal maniac sought to commit 'genocide' upon the Indians…' The missionaries, even more so than the settlers in colonial America had no desire to have Indians die, since their goal was to gain converts and sustain the missions by an assured labor supply." Hence, no genocidal intent. This is plainly a fringe theory. Per Wikipedia policy this material should not be included. Barring some support, I'm going to delete it. This is not to say that valid properly sourced criticisms of Serra, properly weighted, should not be included in the article. That is not what we have currently. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week and no one is addressing the substance of my objection to the inclusion of this material. Since no substantive discussion has been brought to support it (sorry, "I like it" is not real discussion of the issues), I'm going to delete it. Mamalujo ( talk) 21:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Tinker is mentioned by name [4]. And I'm sorry, but you are wrong that all of them must be mentioned by name to cast doubt on their reliability. Clearly, the source is saying this small group of attack dogs who throw historical accuracy to the wind are not RS. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Stannard and Churchill, see Couve de Mourville´s book on Serra, pages 127-130 on the topic of genocide. A totally false reference is given by Stannard, then reproduced by Churchill, regarding Serra being so cruel that he had to be restrained from hanging Indians.
Stannard refers to Palou´s ´Noticias de la Nueva California´ in the English translation by H. E. Bolton, published in 1966. An idea of the shoddy scholarship by these people is that the incident they bring up does not involve Serra at all, but a certain Count de Galvez, a visitor to the mission, who became enraged when the Indians stole some of his equipment and, as Palou describes, had to be restrained by the friars. Somehow, Churchill and Stannard manage to confuse Count Galvez with Junipero Serra.
It is clear to anyone who has read Serra´s writings that these friars, whatever shortcomings they had (they tended to view the natives as grown children) were not in the business of exterminating Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.191.219 ( talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, only their culture and their legal title to their own land. 68.14.145.238 ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I read all of the talk and agree with Will Beback. Stating that a scholar is an unreliable source without having a reliable reference/citation to back that statement is silly. Regardless of how the Spaniard Missionaries perceived what they did - what they did constitutes genocide according to numerous scholars. These scholars statements have been cited in this article and the removal of their citations constitutes vandalism. Spaniard Missionaries literally enslaved indigenous people in California and destroyed their culture. Revolts were violently suppressed. I learned more about Junipero Serra and the historical context through the talk section by uncovering removed sources than I did in the article thanks to the work of Will Beback. It's certainly not NPOV to disregard the opinions of Indigenous People - especially since there is documented reference and citation of Indigenous People condemning Junipero Serra. Multiple perspectives should be considered in this discussion. Just because genocide happened before the term was coined doesn't mean it didn't happen. The historical context of Spanish colonialism doesn't justify or undermine what constitutes genocide. Some of Mamalujo's comments are absolutely ridiculous. This wiki article has many reliable sources in it: /info/en/?search=Category:California_genocide including another wiki /info/en/?search=History_of_enslavement_of_indigenous_peoples_in_California 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B13E:688C:D8C2:A5D5 ( talk) 15:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is woefully short of material on Serra's legacy, on the beatification process, or on the modern controversies.
That's from A Companion to California History. I think we could do well by using it or other reputable reviews to summarize the modern scholarship on this subject. Will Beback talk 23:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Stannard and Churchill, see Couve de Mourville´s book on Serra, pages 127-130 on the topic of genocide. A totally false reference is given by Stannard, then reproduced by Churchill, regarding Serra being so cruel that he had to be restrained from hanging Indians.
Stannard refers to Palou´s ´Noticias de la Nueva California´ in the English translation by H. E. Bolton, published in 1966. An idea of the shoddy scholarship by these people is that the incident they bring up does not involve Serra at all, but a certain Count de Galvez, a visitor to the mission, who became enraged when the Indians stole some of his equipment and, as Palou describes, had to be restrained by the friars.
It is clear to anyone who has read Serra´s writings that these friars, whatever shortcomings they had (they tended to view the natives as grown children) were not in the business of exterminating Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.191.219 ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What's with the term "Father Presidente" used at least twice to describe Serra? Shouldn't it be "Padre Presidente" or "Father President" (or may be "Father Presider")? Why mix the English and Spanish? It seems contrived and touristy. Rwflammang ( talk) 22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
When Serra came to Monterey, California, the first Church he founded was San Carlos the Presidio chapel ( which is my church). After that the mission was relocated to Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo. They are two different Churches, but in the article, they are mixed up a couple times. -Its probably no big deal but since im from the area i thought i should mention this. 76.102.61.23 ( talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Proffessor Dr. Wienerman. 1/30/11
Sorry father Serra was born in Petra, Majorca, Spain. On November 24, 1713 (this year is the 300th. since birth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.63.47 ( talk) 13:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Father Serra learned different kinds of langereges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.228.4.251 ( talk) 02:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In Wikipedia articles, the names of priests should not be preceded by the title Father. Note this guideline concerning use of Father as a title:
Father
Use the Rev. in first reference before the names of Episcopal, Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests. On second reference use only the cleric’s last name. Use Father before a name only in direct quotations.
(Source: Religious titles | Religion Stylebook -- http://religionstylebook.com/entries/category/religion-and-culture/titles) Mksword ( talk) 09:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Encyclopædia Britannica (2010)
- World Book Encyclopedia (2015)
- Encyclopedia Americana (2003)
- Compton's Encyclopedia (1996)
- Encyclopedia of World Biography (1998)
- Encyclopedia of Religion (1987)
- New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition (2003)
- Catholic Encyclopedia (1912)
- New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st edition (1967)
The officials who just petitioned Pope Francis to canonize Junipero Serra pronounced his name with the soft "j" that you would expect. The only people pronouncing it with the "xu" sound seem to be the ones tripping over his name. Is there any documentation about the pronunciation of his name, because what's listed in the article seems to be incorrect, based on what we are hearing today. Trumpetrep ( talk) 20:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for calling attention to this, Trumpetrep. The article lists two pronunciations, English and Spanish; I seem to be the only one talking about the English pronunciation so I moved it to a separate section. The article currently lists the English pronunciation as /dʒuːnɪˈpɛroʊ ˈsɛrə/, starting with a dʒ - "as in jam". That is dead wrong. No American, of any ethnicity, pronounces his name with a J as in Jam. Americans pronounce it with an H, as hoo-NIP-uh-row. I'm guessing we need a source for this, since this is OR from me, but I think others will confirm it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
If there really is some evidence showing that Serra's converts were either sham converts made by intimidation or fraud, or there is evidence that Serra himself was some kind of demented sadist; or that he molested Indian women and boys under his authority; then I for one would like to know about it. That would be utterly damning and certainly grounds for denying him veneration.
But I haven't seen any to date. Only a lot of loose talk about the undisputed fact that he used corporal punishment against his indian converts. But I haven't seen any evidence that he didn't use the same methods against himself and the whites under his authority as well. It was a commonplace of his era. His one great sin would be gross insensitivity to the Indian culture where such methods were considered both cruel and intolerable; and which indeed led to several revolts in the missions, and to the death of both indians and missionaries. Probably he is still doing time in Purgatory for that.
But not for corporal punishment: "If you endure punishment, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not discipline? But if you are without correction, of which all have become partakers, then you are bastards and not sons." Hebrews 12:7-8
It's so hard to be politically correct ahead of your time.
IMHO he was doing the best he could according to his own lights, and those of his times. Perhaps I should stop reading Shakespeare on account of he was both a racist and an anti-Semite, as appears from his plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.79.232 ( talk) 05:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
By the mid-eighteenth century witch-hunting was considered a symptom of mass hysteria at best in the enlightened portion of the Western world and yet Serra was apparently pursuing it with a vigor that would have pleased King James, who may have seen a production of "the Scottish play" and approved the portrayal of the Weird Sisters some hundred and fifty years earlier. How many women died because of this sort of paranoid fanaticism and how much persecution of this sort might Serra have been responsible for? To me this guy sounds like a real piece of work and the political correctness here lies in the desire to find a minimally acceptable Latino who worked within current U.S. borders to canonize, rather than someone who might have actually behaved the way most people think of (a) Christ as behaving. As for Shakespeare, no one is making it an article of faith (yet, I think) that Bill has the ear of the Almighty,that burning candles to him will have an effect on one's sciatica, or that his legacy is one of simple, unalloyed, and uncomplicated good for the Christian faith and yet another uplifting chapter in the history of the Western conquest of the Americas (see "The Tempest" or better yet give it a close reading.) But of course if you think Shakespeare must have been a racist, an anti-semite, and a murderer because he created characters who were racists, anti-semites and murderers then you are probably one of those people who think Nabokov was a paedophile who is currently enduring an otherlife somewhere even less comfortable than Purgatory. So is Serra in in heaven or only halfway there? I suspect that to a certain degree he's still in California, which has sheltered many a zealot since his day and that many a zealot will appear at this site to defend his legacy in a manner almost as atavistic as a witch-hunter in the Age of Reason and perhaps even enough to make his tormented (or blessed) shade sigh in approval.
68.14.145.238 (
talk) 01:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change covert to convert.see this line in article: The new mission lacked Indians to covert. should be: The new mission lacked Indians to convert.
2601:602:8402:118B:0:0:0:5A94 ( talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The 48th citation URL has a typo. It should be http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/s_z/serra.htm, not http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/peoples_z/serra.htm. Millennial Dan ( talk) 02:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Please reader WP:OR, specifically, this part: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are taking material from one source that says Lara is gay, and a second source which says Ride is gay, and combining it with yet a third sources that says Lara proposed a bill to replace Serra's statue with Ride's to imply that the motivation for doing that was Lara's sexual identity. WP:SYNTH doesn't get any worse than this. Bad Dryer ( talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, now that we have reliable sourcing, I propose to add this sentence to the article: "Lara, who is gay, praised Ride as the first American woman in space and as a role model for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. [2]"
OK with everybody? -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: not sure who that "purposely obtuse" reference was towards from user DD2K. But as an admin, maybe you should let the user in question know that it is not at all civil? Do you think it advanced this topic or discussion? Trinacrialucente ( talk) 01:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC) @ MelanieN:Also, I'm fine with your edit...however I would caution to add "openly gay" (not just gay) since a) that's what the articles say and b) you wouldn't want anyone coming after you saying you were trying to "out" him. Trinacrialucente ( talk) 01:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Not that your suggestion is not pretty good, but perhaps a little better to work in that fact that young girls can look up to Ride and be inspired to do well in those subjects. Dave Dial ( talk) 02:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)“She was a hero and she inspired girls and women to pursue their interest in math and science,” said another lawmaker, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara)
A comment for all of you to share among yourselves: There is a lesson here, and it is this: Wikipedia is not a contest, with the goal of declaring winners and losers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with the goal of accuracy. Accuracy is determined by Reliable Sources, not by our opinions, not even by whether our opinions turn out to be right or wrong; see WP:Verifiability, not truth. The next time you feel like getting into an edit war over something, don't. Instead, go to the talk page and prove your point with independent reliable sources. And then share in the common task of putting something accurate and verified into the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories: People of Alta California and Californios? It was not native to California, is native to Mallorca. This category is only for the natives of that place.
Should Junipero Serra's baptismal name be written as Miguel, or Miquel? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 07:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Junipero Serra was born in Majorca, an island off the coast of Spain, in the 1700s. The native dialect on Majorca at the time was Catalan. Was his baptismal name Miguel (the Castilian spelling) or Miquel (the Catalan spelling)? Reliable sources are split regarding the usage; some sources use Miquel ( The Atlantic, 2015, Man of greatness: Father Junipero Serra, 1964), while others use Miguel ( California Catholic Conference, 2015, Junípero Serra: The Man and His Work, 1914)
I don't see any clear guidance in MOS:BIO on this point, and comments above suggest the "baptismal record" reference ( archived link) may not actually be a baptismal record. Due to the political situation in Catalonia, this risks having POV concerns. Thus, I am starting an RfC on what might otherwise be a minor issue. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The section Junípero Serra#King Carlos expels the Jesuits does not seem, from its present text, to have any connection whatsoever to Serra personally: it is more relevant to the history of Roman Catholic Missions in California generally. As the article notes, despite his connection to the Inquisition, Serra was a Franciscan, not a Jesuit, unless I missed something. Since this is an article about Serra and not the Missions in general, can someone make that section relevant, or should the whole section simply be deleted or transferred elsewhere? If transferred, to where? — KGF0 ( T | C ) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC) I would like to condense the section on his early life, as it is long and filled with extraneous details. Marcywinograd ( talk) 20:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Help is needed to add references to the article to support these points. Should it be "August 28" everywhere outside the United States, where it is honored on July 1? [7] Thanks. -- PFHLai ( talk) 02:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that the following additions be made:
Notes:
For needed citations for the first building, please look at archived Los Angeles Times articles that are suggested at the Pacific Coast Architecture Database website. The Water and Power Associates website has additional descriptions on Junipero Serra State Office Building #1 (1960-1999).
For needed citations for the second building, please use Google or look at the The Broadway#Downtown flagship store section for suggestions.
There might be enough information available to expand this into several paragraphs and create a new state office buildings section.
-- 96.64.134.61 ( talk) 23:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to contain a number of organizational and bias issues, which I propose we work on resolving. The most sensitive issue is, of course, those parts of the article engaging with his role in the Mission system. This article needs to be neither a systematic defense of Serra’s character nor a deliberate attack upon it. We need only let history speak for itself. To address the previously raised opinion that current morality cannot be applied to past examples, I reiterate that we as editors do have a responsibility to report in a neutral way upon the subjects of our articles. However, this means that we also have a responsibility not to defend Serra. To argue that Serra cannot be criticized for things that were widely accepted by Europeans at the time not only falls into the trap of moral relativism, but elides the fact that Missionization was widely unpopular among Indigenous Californians subjected to it. Such an assertion does not seem to me to be controversial in modern scholarship, and off the top of my head I can cite as evidence of this displeasure the regular confinement of and frequent attempted escapes by “neophytes”, as well as occasional revolts and individual rebellions. In any case, I like the way some of the “controversy” section is ordered, with representations of multiple viewpoints that are put in reasonably balanced dialogue with each other. I would very much like to see the same structure applied to the section on canonization, which currently contains only viewpoints from those who support it. As far as organization goes, I think that I would be good to have canonization as its own section, rather than a subsidiary of the “Treatment of Native Californians Section”. I also think that the placing of most of the content of this section under the label “Modern Controversy” implies that the activities he was involved in were uncontroversial at the time (and again, the issue is not whether it was uncontroversial among Europeans, but that it was generally opposed by Indigenous Californians at the time). There are, of course, many other parts of the article that could do with review, but I think that this will constitute a good start to the discussion. Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 04:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
zr4fx5 72.219.94.80 ( talk) 20:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we add the Representación to Wikisource? It is in the public domain, having been written in 1773. WaterAnonn ( talk) 20:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Controversy over the missions Serra operated" states that Mark A. Noll is a professor at Wheaton College. While he was faculty at Wheaton for many years, he moved to Notre Dame in 2006 and seems to still be there. Citation: https://history.nd.edu/people/mark-noll/ Noseybookworm ( talk) 18:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)