Talk:Plutarco Elías Calles

message: Very similar to the Obregon entry, it needs more on what he did. Calles was a central figure in the development of Mexico, and should be treated more thoroughly. also obviously needs to be organized with headings. Finally, the article leaves out almost completely Calles' career before and after the presidency, during the latter of which he was still very influential.
:category:anti-catholicism is already a subcat of :category:religious persecution, so adding this page to the cat:religious persecution would be double categorization. And although it's undeniable that PEC violated human rights, we can't add every dictator and human rights violator in that cat. Firstly it would become huge (arguable could could add almost every leader at every point in history from every countryt), secondly it would become very POV-sensitive, thirdly if you look at the category, you'll see that this policy is already followed, there are (almost) no people in it and fourthly the universal declaration of human rights did not puta madre hijo de la chingada exist yet when Calles was president, so adding him in that category would be anachronistic. Mixcoatl 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: IIRC Enrique Krauze's Biografia del Poder mentions that Calles was agnostic rather than an atheist. I currently don't have the book here, so could somebody check it? Mixcoatl 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked this fact in the book that you talk about. It is actually very hard to figure out what Calles' beliefs are. It doesn't seem that he was a committed atheist or agnostic, although he was definitely anti Catholic clergy. The books says that this was rooted on a strong anticlerical tradition in his family and in Sonora. --Hugo Estrada 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist or agnostic? 

message: I believe that it is fair to call him "rightwing" since we have two sources that substantiates his sympathies towards fascism and Naziism. Considering the political atmosphere of the time, I "rightwing" seem a lot more accurate than, "moved to the right" which could imply that he was only a moderate from then on.
However, I will leave the text as it is unless other people feel that stressing Calles documented sympathies towards fascism must be included in the article. --Hugo Estrada 00:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calles becoming rightwing 

message: I added a new section under Mexico-U.S. relations. This was a major theme of his presidency, and an important chapter on Mexico's oil theme. Also, Ambassador Morrow, who arrived to Mexico in 1927, was going to play a key role in getting oil agreements and peace agreements of the Cristero War.
Please comment and edit. --Hugo Estrada 03:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section on Mexico-U.S. relations

message: I was surprised to see the following line in the Calles article:
:According to (false) rumours, his parents had been Syrians or Turks, giving him the nickname El Turco (The Turk). In order not to draw too much attention to his bad childhood, Calles chose to ignore those rumours rather than to combat them.
Can anyone provide evidence to substantiate the claim that Calles' father was not of Levantine (Syrian or Lebanese) origin or descent? Note that his father's last name was Elías (not Calles); Elías is a Syrian/Lebanese Christian surname, not a Spanish surname that I am aware of. (Note also that Syria/Lebanon were part of the Ottoman empire until after 1915, and all immigrants from the region were known in Latin America as turcos regardless of ethnicity.)
--Potosino (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Krauze mentioned it in the biography of power. He had no Turkish/Arab ancestors, the Elías lived in Mexico since at least the 18th century. I added the references. Mixcoatl (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sephardics  and  Turks  were  deported  to  Mexico  in  colonial  times. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry / Ethnic background

message: The article claims
"Although he may not have called himself a Communist, he enacted polices in line with the 10 planks of Communism, such as the Central Bank and the government schools. Whether someone professes to be communist, socialist, marxist, or fascist the objective is always the same, smash the existing social order and rebuild it in your own image through violence. It has to be violent because these revolutions are never popular, contrary to the myths perpetuated by some."
ad sentence 1: the "ten planks of communism", i.e. the ten immediate measures proposed in the "Communist Manifesto" are not supposed to define what Communism is all about, and many of these measures have been carried out by governments w/o any communist ambition. That someone may have carried out a few or all of the immediate measures says nothing about their relationship with Communism.
ad sentence 2 & 3: completely unsupported claims! Left and right do not want the same, and there are moreover many cases in history of both leftist and right-wing revolutions with extensive popular bases.
All of this should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.94.145 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported claims on alleged Communism & Fascism 

message: It seems very unlikely that Calles was both a Freemason and an atheist, given that freemasonry requires a belief in a "higher-being". The only source given seems very low quality, a sort-of pop-history "Who's Who" of Freemasons that lacks any primary sources. Does anyone know of a reliable source supporting the claim that Calles was a Freemason? Glaucus (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So called regular or Anglo-American freemasonry purportedly  requires belief in a supreme being (some dispute this stating that you simply may not be a "stupid atheist" as opposed to a clever one), but continental or latin freemasonry does not. In fact, I believe it is this issue which was responsible for the schism. Mexico is seen as following the continental or latin pattern. There are many other sources citing to his masonic membership. Mamalujo (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Calles himself was appointed Grade 33 mason by the Mexican Rite in 1927, in recognition of his "eminent services" to the Patria in fighting Catholicism. And freemasonry remained a major factor, alongside Marxism, in the anticlericalism...." according to  Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemason 

message: Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert. 
(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoxoxes.)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette 
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher 
There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It implies something that is not true
:Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous. 
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
:Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.
It goes against consensus
:This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
:More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
:On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count. 
It is unsourced
:If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
:In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
:Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."
In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.
:When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
:In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief. 
In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Atheism" isn't a religion, but neither is "theism." Both are words that describe someone's philosophy relating to religious matters. Some Christians say that Christianity isn't a religion. Should we therefore not consider it a religion?  Penn Jillette finding the word icky is irrelevant. Carlo (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy Macon knows nothing about Calles and his complicated relationship to religion in Mexico.  That does not matter. He posts this identical spam to hundreds of articles because he has not read the most basic books on comparative religion.  He has not even seen Wikipedia's Religion article where the consensus of over 1000 active editors explains: "The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion."  Macon is simply unaware that some major religions include atheists.  For the record Calles's father was a leading atheist who taught his son all about religion and made him one of Mexico's most famous proponents of atheism and enemy of the Catholic church. [ref = The Mexican Revolution, 1910-1940  By Michael J. Gonzales p 203] Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continued personal attacks on multiple talk pages do not make your argument stronger. Quite the opposite, actually. Keep it up and we will end up discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. The fact that some religions include atheists is irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is a religion. Some ice cream contains chocolate, but that does not prove that chocolate is an ice cream. Some houses have basements, but that does not prove that a basement is a house. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: you have zero to tell readers about Calles so go away, Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Plutarco Elías Calles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516233414/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Calles-P.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Calles-P.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: His parents never married in spite of having two children together, could someone please add an explanation for this because Mexican society (including the atheists) was more conservative in the 1800s. 42.107.64.1 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents