Talk:Pachamama

Removed content

Removed this from the page for non-neutrality and probable copyright infringement; I'll leave it here in case it ends up being useful for the expansion of the article.

[ removed from here by Pipetricker ]

From the book: "The Awakening of the Puma" by Mallku ISBN 9972-9384-2-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by QVanillaQ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the removed content from here too, being a blatant copyright violation. --Pipetricker (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

PoV

The Politcal usage section has numerous PoV problems. I'm going to try to clean it up, but I'm not an expert on the topic or a very experienced editor, so I'd love it if someone else would take a look as well. 173.175.5.86 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it my best shot. It has left the section rather sparse, unfortunately. There wasn't much NPoV information present and I don't know enough about the topic to add more. 173.175.5.86 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Some Additional Information

Some information could be added about:

• the origin of the word (Quechua), and word pronunciation.

• Information about the actual mountain called Pachamama

• The Pachamama celebration: What dates? What are some traditions (eg. yellow confetti)? Who participates?

Musicjuice22 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Amazon Synod in Rome

A user keeps trying to insert a claim from the Society of Saint Pius X that worship of Pachamama took place in Rome in October 2019. The Society of Saint Pius X is a Christian religious order that has zero expertise in Pachamama or the customs of people from the Andes region. As such, they are not a reliable source for this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the Daily Telegraph is an acceptable source for some of this. And this does seem to be of genuine controversy in traditionalist circles. Of particular note is the "theft" and disposal of idols from a church in Rome, two gentlemen videoed themselves as they threw the idols in the Tiber River. Even the Vatican spox had something to say after that incident. Elizium23 (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the subject of this article, which is the Incan goddess Pachamama. No source with the necessary expertise on the subject of Pachamama has stated that the statues were of Pachamama. The Telegraph states it in passing, but without citing any credible source. Given that it is in fact disputed whether the statues were of the Incan goddess (see here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-synod-amazon-theft-forgiveness/pope-asks-forgiveness-for-theft-of-controversial-amazon-statues-idUSKBN1X427A), the incident in Rome should not be mentioned in this article unless a source with actual expertise on Pachamama can be found that links the statues to the Incan goddess. A bunch of fringe extremists making claims about a different religion doesn't deserve mention in that religion's article. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

According to that Reuters article, the Vatican's position is that the statues were "an effigy of maternity and the sacredness of life", and were an indigenous traditional symbol of life. It seems that the Vatican's editorial, by its use of italics, was allowing that the Pope's characterization of the statues as "the Pachamama statues" may not have been intended by the Pope to be literally correct. In any case, the Reuters article does not say that anyone has denied that the statues were Pachamama statues.

Even if someone could authoritatively determine whether or not those statues were statues of Pachamama, it would remain true that overall public perceptions would outweigh such a dogmatic determination in the minds of people.

The article in The Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/12/conservative-catholics-accuse-pope-francis-idolatrous-indigenous/) refers to the statues as "statues of the goddess Pachamama" and as "statuettes of Pachamama". Many other newspaper articles do likewise.

The Bolivia Wikipedia article says that a 2001 census found 78% of Bolivians to be Roman Catholic.

The Pachamama Wikipedia article says that "After the conquest by Spain, conversion to Roman Catholicism took place and the figure of the Virgin Mary was equated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people." I infer that many adherants of indigenous religions outwardly identify as Catholic but are actually polytheistic, with elements of Catholicism composing one segment of their polytheism. Thus, controversy within Roman Catholicism about the status of indigenous religious elements (idolatrous or not, pagan or not) unavoidably affects today's indigenous religious community. Mksword (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

No one with any expertise on the subject of this article, Pachamama, has said that the statues displayed in Rome were of Pachamama. If you want to add the idle speculations of a few fringe extremists who know absolutely nothing about the real Pachamama to this article, then you need to obtain community consensus to do so. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if there were a good source saying that people in Rome were definitely worshipping Pachamama, it would just be trivia and thus not appropriate for the article. Does the Wikipedia article on Islam mention every single time someone outside of Arabia worships Allah? I doubt it. This alleged incident at the Vatican is incredibly trivial. Axedel (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)