Talk:Cristero War

Deleted "Marxist Mexican Government"

There was nothing "Marxist" even remotely about the Revolutionary Government of Mexico that came to power on the heals of hte 1910-1918 Revolution. The closest it ever came to "Marxism" was under the Cardenas presidency ('34- '40) and at no point did *any* of Presidents, nor what became, can be described as "Marxist". it's actually quite a slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.228.221 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You are in many ways correct, but many members of the government were inspired by Marx. Garrido particularly considered himself a Marxist. I am not sure about Calles, he have have had some Marxist influence. The government could be described as left-leaning but certainly not a Marxist government, as you say.

And it is not too much of a slander. In the Western world, secularism is a virtue. The laws prohibiting the church from owning too much land, trying to sway people to politics (religion and politics should not mix), stopping priests advertising their religions outside of church and having religious schools are things that are pretty much accepted as correct in most secular countries. If such laws were passed in the US and the UK (and some have been) people would not care but due to the church's dominance in Mexico, a rebellion occurred. There is no slander in talking about fact, though I do think this article (as usual for wikipedia) as a Christian (specifically Catholic) bias. I'd prefer the article to be truly neutral rather than trying to sway people in either direction (supporting the government or supporting the Cristeros). The Mummy (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

it's been deleted because the gov't., factually, was not "Marxist" which is a self-described label not appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.228.221 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This answer seems to be motivated by emotion and politics and should be taken with great scrutiny. 2600:1702:1DD1:2500:194E:2A16:BD9E:3A27 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Major revamping necessary

This article seems to have very few citations. There are a number of respected sources by academic historians, especially Jean Meyer's monumental three-volume work "La Cristiada," which should form the basis of the article.

Regarding who was at fault, a point that is brought up: that is not an issue to be raised in Wikipedia. The issue is getting the relevant facts into the piece and getting it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.214.118 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If the PRI was not Marxist? Why did Trotsky flee to Mexico is it because it was a nice climate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.76.115 (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Template needed

This needs to use the Template:Battlebox, like seen on Polish-Soviet War for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human rights or civil rights

I changed "human rights" to "civil rights" since that is a more accurate description of the rights involved: voting, freedom of expression, the right to wear clerical garb. 24.126.41.116 07:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) aka User:Italo Svevo

More background

Should there not be a bit more background on the 1917 Constitution? The articles there did not spring ex nihilo: they were rooted in a long-standing conflict between Independent Mexico and the RCC. The RCC first demanded that Independent Mexico take over the obligations of the Spanish Crown (vis a vis the Concordato signed between the Church and the Crown), but refused to grant them the corresponding priviledges (most notably, the naming of bishops and archbishops). When the 1856 Constitution did not include civil penalties and prosecution for failure to obey canon law (e.g., failure to pay a tithe and so on), the Church denounced it and issued an Excommunication Writ on anyone who swore to uphold it (as all civil officials were required to do). They then offered a ceremony for "removal of the oath" for anyone who wanted it. They would later reaffirm the excommunication writ though they only selectively enforced it during the Porfirio Diaz years. After Maximilian supported some of the Reform laws issued by Juarez and Lerdo de Tejada, the RCC demanded that he declare catholicism not only the official religion of Mexico, but "the one and only possible religion for all mexicans"; Maximilian refused, though he offered to make it the official religion of the Royal House (not enough for the RCC). The conflict hardly began in 1917; as for some of the civil rights, the right to vote was (and remains) denied on the grounds that the RCC clergy must swear an oath of fealty to a foreign head of state, an act that usually carries a revokation of citizenship not only in Mexico, but in most countries. Magidin Talk 10:14, 24 Aug 2005 (MDT)

Agreed, but at least in my case I don't have any references which I could use to expand this article. And my background on this issue is certainly not enough. Why don't you add the info yourself or at least provide some sources? -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 15:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one reference is Mexico a través de los siglos, which contains a wealth of transcribed original documents (such as the letters exchanged by the Nuncio and Maximilian on the issue of the official religion of Mexico). Alas, I don't have it with me, and still being somewhat new to Wikipedia I do not want to mess around too much with an article that has been deemed a featured article without some discussion, hence my posting this in talk rather than just going ahead writing from memory. Magidin Talk 12:10, 24 Aug 2005 (MDT)

There's a lot of material to cover on church/state relations, both before and after independence. Magidin, do you feel up to adding a "History" section to Catholic Church in Mexico?

Alas, not off the top of my head, which is what I would be doing if I were trying to do it now. Magidin Talk 13:11, 24 Aug 2005 (MDT)

Pitty, I have that series of books back at home. The problem is that I'm in Germany right now :( -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Adding to Midigin's excellent historical background, the main issue(according to some scholars) was the government's decision to provide free and non-religious public education, since education was, in a certain way, controlled and used as a means of indoctrination, by the RCC. The RCC may have accepted (though grudginly) the confiscation of their property, but once education was taken from their hands, according to these scholars, their power over the population would be limited. Also, it should be noted that Mexico was probably the first and one of the few countries in Latin America that did it. Even today, RCC in Argentina receives by law funds from the government, and many public schools are Catholic. Same situation in Spain, and in both countries the issue whether "religion" (that is, catholicism) should still be part of the curricula, is extremely controversial.--129.119.25.31 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's incorrect. Public education in Argentina has been secular by law since 1884. There are private catholic schools like elsewhere in the Western world, but public education is strictly secular. See: Argentine Law 1420. One should be careful about making generalizations about the "Spanish speaking world" as the history, culture, background and socioeconomics in each country are very different. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.19.248.204 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that as in any war or conflict in Mexico, complex underpinnings are at work. So to say that the Cristiada and the Cristero movement was completely caused by a dispute between the Mexican government and the Roman Catholic Church is miss the complete scope of the problem. Much has been said of President Plutarco Elías Calles and much of the evidence signals him as a pseudo fascist dictator. Much of his hate for Catholicism, could be rooted to a longing for a system similar to Francisco Franco's anticlerical Spain. The Vatican's later subjugation by Mussolini gives further evidence. With that said, much of the Cristero movement was more a liberal reaction (freedom of belief) than a conservative movement, although its roots appear to come from the 19th century Conservative party. Let's remember that after Porfirio Díaz (which merged both parties into one), Mexican ruling people have always tried to align opposition movements with the ill-fated Conservative wing. Even Cuauhtemoc Cárdenas was once pictured as a Conservative, opposed to the (neo)liberal Carlos Salinas de Gortari, which--of course--is a complete lie.--201.116.149.85 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish all the right-wingers and Catholics here would stop throwing around the word Fascist about people who were not in anyway inspired by Mussolini and Co. and who were not far-right of the centre of the political spectrum. Whether you like it or not, Fascism is a right-wing ideology. That said, it is incorrect to even call extreme conservatives Fascists because to be a Fascist (even a pseudo-Fascist) you need a pedigree actually stretching back to the foundation of Fascism in Italy. Calles etc. were not inspired by Fascism and thus they cannot be Fascist. Many members of the government considered themselves Marxist, and most Marxist groups are anti-clerical.

Franco was not anti-cleric, the left-leaning Spanish Republic which he overthrow was. Mussolini was not particularly anti-clerical when it came to politics either, even if he was an atheist. You need to read up more on the history of these regimes. Also you should remember Salazar, leader of Portugal, who was an extreme Catholic and inspired by Fascism.

Anti-clericalism is not a core tenant of Fascism, it is, however, a core tenant of most Radical Left groups such as Marxism (particularly that of Marxism-Leninism...hence Envar Hoxha). Maybe some Cristeros were liberal, but most of their leaders were conservatives trying to preserve the status quo (incidentally one of the aims of Fascism is to do the same, but they are really more a backstep from conservatism). The Mummy (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Concentration camp; The Cristero War; Near La Piedad Michoacan there was a stockyard, La Ribera, it's across the river from Yurécuaro, Michoacán It became a concentration camp. It was packed full of people Little food no salt there was a rule you better not point up and say christ is king off came your hands. My mother Francisca born 1921 she must have been 7y/o they cut her index finger off. She must have said something the guards didn't like. the on line says the Elite in Mexico City were Jewish. I'm not not found of catholic or jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C980:34F8:C44A:D818:4048:C0C5 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A few minor changes and a proposed improvement.

Fixed some word choices for readability and NPOV.

Also, shouldn't this article make some reference to the Sinarquista movement? I'll leave it to someone with a better grasp of the topic.

NPOV

Some academicians advance the idea that the "Cristero War" was provoked by the Catholics. It is, of course, undeniable that the Constitution of 1917 took giant steps to guarantee a separation of the church and state (and perhaps, punished the Catholic church too harshly). However, some scholars argue that the church earned these punishments by attacking the writers of the constitution during time that supposedly was for worship.

A brief background of the Church's history in Mexico (including their involvement in the latifundios, speculation with land, amalgamation of wealth, support of a classist system, cooperation with Maximilian of Hapsburg and the war of Reform) should also help the readers put in perspective why the writers of the 1917 constitution felt to be so harsh on the church.

In my opinion, this article leads the reader to believe that the government repressed the church with no reason and that patriots fought for certain religious rights. Nothing is farther from the truth. First of all, the church was not unique in the repression they suffered. If anything, the government was permissive with the church compared to what it did to other groups. Second, the constitution was written the way it was for a reason, and that reason is not shown. Lastly, both sides in the blood shed where fanatics. The article, instead of emphasizing the irrationality behind the conflict, concludes with how certain warriors of the Catholic side were beatified and made saints!

This article is in favor of the catholic view, and should be revised for a neutral point of view.

Hari Seldon 08:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I made comments along these lines back in September 2005; see some of the sections above in this Talk page. But they need references. If you have access to Mexico a través de los siglo, they include a lot of the full text of the laws, excommunication writs, and so on, which would definitely belong in an "Historical Antecedents" section, as mentioned before. Magidin 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't have access to that text. But I am sure that other sources can provide similar information. I'll look in the local public library. Hari Seldon 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent reverts between Hari Seldon and Mamalujo, it might be noted that it was the 1917 Constitution that granted Freedom of Religion in Mexico, while the Cristeros were against such a provision: they wanted an official Catholic government; much as in the 1857 Constitution, they objected to the Freedom of Conscience clauses in the Constitution, and to the Government not enforcing canon law (the latter being the source of the break between the Vatican and the Mexican government in the 19th century). While it is true that the Government went far beyond simply enforcing those provisions, both sides were active in denying freedom of conscience to others. Magidin 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I didn't want to engage in an edit war, but would be grateful if more sources could be provided. I am working on getting them, but until then, I am reluctant to make controversial changes. Indeed, based on the information I have, it is my belief that the constitution of 1917 is liberal, and that Plutarco Elías Calles simply took it to an extreme interpretation.

Hari Seldon 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with those who argue that the causes of the Cristero War must include the reasons why the anti-clerical/Catholic provisions were put in the 1917 constitution, else the article is incomplete and is biased. There is a vast scholarship on this, and if addtl. sources are requested, I can add as many footnotes as you like. Tmangray 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its fine that contributions include what scholars consider to be the reasons for the anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism which led to the Cristero war. Of course, it should be understood that there is not a consensus that "abuses" by the Church was the cause. The elites responsible for the anti-clericalism in Mexico were quite different from the people they purported to represent. The strong influence of Freemasonry among Mexican leaders (well documented in scholarly literature - not conspiracy theorizing on my part) shows how divorced they were from the populace. Feel free to include what the anticlerical element claimed was their motivation, but balance will require that the article include what many other commentators believe to be their motives. You've got a tough row to hoe if you want to claim that virulent atheists the likes of Calles and Garrido were enacting the will of the people. Mamalujo 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about atheism. There has always been a strong sentiment among Mexican CATHOLICs outside of the powerful classes that has resented the abuses of the church and many (not all) of the clergy. It is a very similar phenomenon to what happened in much of Europe. The Inquisition, the special privileges granted the church, the vast landholdings when most Mexicans were land-poor, the sexual abuses which occurred, the support for foreign invaders, opposition to democratic reforms...these and many other reasons put the people at odds with the church even while most people considered themselves good Catholics. The fact is, the Cristeros were a small minority movement in Mexico, not enjoying widespread support at all. This is the main reason why they were so easily suppressed. Tmangray 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar as I would like to be with the history of these events and the issues behind them, which is why I looked it up on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't feel that this article rises to the level of neutrality and professionalism that I've seen in other Wikipedia pages. I'm particularly disturbed to see what appears to be a bias against atheism and atheists in general, as suggested by the description of Calles as a "strident atheist." Unfortunately this impression only seems to be confirmed by Mamalujo's post, above, describing Calles and Garrido as "virulent atheists" and seemingly suggesting that atheist leaders are somehow incapable of representing society. I very much hope that this wasn't the intent, and that these references will be changed ASAP. The appearance of religious bias could seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation. (Would it be considered proper to talk of a "strident Christian," "strident Jew," "strident Muslim," etc., or to suggest that a supposedly "virulent Catholic" leader could not possibly represent the will of, say, the English people?) Instead of just blaming the anticlerical reforms on the (putatively) evil Catholic-hating atheist leader, there should be some analysis of the reasons for the anticlericalism (which was by no means confined to Calles or to some Masonic "élite"), and what conditions were seen as problems in need of addressing and why.

Based on my understanding of the history of anticlericalism elsewhere in the world (particularly France and Spain) and on what information I was able to glean from the article in spite of its crudely pro-clerical/anti-secular bias, I tend to agree with Tmangray that the extreme anticlericalism of Calles was not the result of his personal beliefs (indeed, the reverse could be true: his anticlerical views may have contributed to his atheism), and that there was a perception that the Church and the clergy had too much power over society. Such a perception was not unique to Mexico, nor was it restricted to non-Catholics; it has indeed been common among lay Catholics. Besides the Church's involvement in politics, it appears a major issue in Mexico was the accumulation of wealth by the Church. (I don't know much about the issue of the Church's "support of a classist system" that Hari Seldon mentions, but certainly the Church has historically promoted feudalism and absolute monarchy; only since the Second Vatican Council has it adopted a positive view of democracy.) We see rules preventing state funding of the Church; limiting the Church to the amount of wealth it needed in order to keep itself running; and preventing the frequent practise of leaving bequests to the Church. As I understand it, the Church actively encouraged the latter, teaching that leaving money to the Church was a "good work" (and thus could help the testator get into heaven). It also seems like the article paints all the Constitutional reforms with broad strokes, as being entirely oppressive and provocative, whereas it seems to me that while some of the reforms are certainly quite harsh, others (like the secularisation of the schools and the requirement that they teach from a rational perspective, or the law preventing the state from "establishing or prohibiting a particular religion" (my emphasis)) were positive moves toward greater inclusiveness. A lot of these issues continue to have relevance today, not only in Mexico but in many other countries in the Americas and worldwide; they shouldn't be treated dismissively, and Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides, explicitly or implicitly. 174.111.242.35 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While Juarez was certainly justified in the measures included in the original constitution to combat the enormous influence of the clergy, he did not foresee either the rise of socialism as a potent political force nor, apparently, the ends to which state control of education might be applied. Calles certainly took advantage of that, and certain elements of Mexican society showed themselves willing to go even further. Both the political class and the clergy understood at high levels that socialism and the church could not coexist in the long run, hence strife was certainly a predictable result.68.189.219.96 (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Featured?

Why is this article featured? It's not that good. It could be a lot larger, it doesn't present a single historian's view, it's not really NPOV and it simply reads bad. I suggest this article should lose its featured status, how does that work? Mixcoatl 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100% Hari Seldon 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a featured article back in October, 2004. It cannot lose its previously featured article because you cannot change history. Back then the articles weren't that good. --FateClub 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can change history, and it lookss like this article isn't going to be featured much longer. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --FateClub 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a good call, no doubt. Unless, of course, the quality of the article could be improved... Hari Seldon 18:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To the level of a good article? Not in near future. Now... to a featured article? I doubt it. --FateClub 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic or anti-clerical?

Shouldn't the intro simply describe the government as anti-clerical? "Anti-Catholic" seems to be a rather POV position. AshbyJnr 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. I agree with you, and several incarnations of the article have used "anti-clerical". Some editors, however, seem to disagree and keep changing it to "anti-catholic". Magidin 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not merely anti-clerical, although many argue, with good reason, that anticlericalism is inherently anti-catholic. For example, people (José Sánchez del Río for example) were threatened with execution and/or torture to renounce their faith. That is not mere anti-clericalism. Also, the clearing of priests from Tabasco, limiting the entire state of Chihuahua to one priest - that's not mere anti-clericalism but and attempt to suppress if not abolish the faith. Mamalujo 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If "anticlericalism is inherentlhy anti-catholic", then anticatholicism is a implied by anticlericalism, and the latter is a wider thrust than the fomer. So describing anticlericalism as "merely" would be incorrect to begin with. It would be like saying that it was not merely "soaked", it was "wet". Anticlericalism casts a wider net than anti-catholicism does, as it also restricts other religions (though naturally it hits stronger those religions which have a strong clerical structure such as catholicism, than those who do not, like, say, taoism). Did the government take away rights from catholic priests that it did not deny clerics from other religions? I do not believe so. As such, "anti-clericalism" would be a better label. You may argue that the main objective of the law was catholicism (it being the predominant religion in Mexico; it being the only religious institution that actively opposed the Constitution of 57 because it did not provide civil penalties for not following canon law; it being the one that excommunicated anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution; it being the one who demanded from Maximilian that it declare catholicism "the one and only religion, and the only possible religion, of Mexico and all mexicans"; etc.), or that the anti-clericalism was a mere sham of "even-handed oppression" when the "true goal" was an attack on catholicism, but that's a different issue. The laws were anti-clerical, not anti-catholic. Magidin 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Magadin, claiming that anticlericalism is inherently anticatholic makes no sense. Apart from the fact that it's perfectly possible for anticlericalism to be directed at other religions (Atatürk would be a good example), anticlericalism only becomes anti-Catholic (or anti-whatever religion) when it reaches a certain level of severity. Separating church and state in a country that's predominantly Catholic (like Mexico in 1857) is anticlerical but definately not anti-Catholic. As for Calles' campaigns aimed specifically at Catholics, I recall to have read somewhere that Mennonites were also targeted. May be worth investigating. Mixcoatl (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of historical fact that the "anti-clerical" laws of the 1917 Constitution were directed against the Catholic Church. The liberal governments actively favored protestant groups and attempted to use the 1917 "anti-clerical" articles to destroy Catholicism. The liberals, most of whom were anti-Catholic Freemasons, wished to subdue and even destroy the Church. So referring to their policies as "anti-Catholic" does not violate NPOV. "Anti-clerical" is a term used by the liberals to imply that somehow their measures were only directed at the clergy, when in fact they were directed at Catholic education and religious activity by laymen as well. 189.169.221.22 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-clerical? Yes. Anti-Catholic? Yes too. Even if the average Mexican catholic did not suffer proportionally as much as the clergy they still were persecuted. The Government stealing huge swaths of church property including closing all of the schools and stealing the buildings and the same with monastery's and hospitals and of courses the churches themselves. This theft hurt all Mexican catholics. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maestros desorejados.

I am afraid you are only enlisting half of the martyrs of the Cristero War. You must also include those teachers who were tortured or murdered by the Cristeros accused of teaching a socialist education. They were known as maestros desorejados because the Cristeros used to cut-off their ears. Here is a small list of those teachers:

• María Rodríguez Murillo, rapped, mutilated and murderer in Huiscolco, Zacatecas.[1] References: David L. Raby (1974) Educación y revolución social en México (1921 a 1940), SEP, México, p. 137. Salvador Frausto Crotte "Maestra María R. Murillo. Víctima de fanatismo y rencor religioso" El Universal, 17 de junio de 2001.

• Carlos Toledano, burn alive in Altotonga (Tlapacoyan), Veracruz. Reference: Miguel Baltazar Vázquez (2005) Altotonga: un pueblo con historia, Altotonga, pp. 231-32.

• Martires de Tezihuatlan, Puebla. References: Édgar González Ruiz (2004) Los otros cristeros y su presencia en Puebla‎ - Página 515. Consuelo Reguer (1997) Dios y mi derecho, Tomo 4, Jus, México, p. 532. El Maestro Rural, tomo VII, num 11, diciembre de 1935, p. 26.

• Vicente Escudero (16 years old), tortured and murdered in Santa Mónica de viudas, Zacatecas. References: Revista Resurgimiento, Vol 1, No. 5 Abril-Mayo de 1934.

• Saúl Maldonado y Guillermo Suro, murdered in Tlaltenango, Zacatecas. References: Donald L. Raby (1974) Educación y revolución social en México (1921 a 1940), SEP, México, p. 160. Alfonso Taracena (1992) La Verdadera Revolución Mexicana (1935-1936), Porrúa, México, 1992, p. 21.

• David Moreno, tortured and murdered in Hacienda de Santa Inés, Aguascalientes. Alfonso Taracena (1992) La Verdadera Revolución Mexicana (1935-1936), Porrúa, México, 1992, p. 75. Salvador Camacho Sandoval (1991) Controversia educativa entre la ideología y la fe. La educación socialista en la historia de Aguascalientes. 1876 a 1940, Conaculta, México, p. 160. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.127.251 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a short section about some teachers mutilated, tortured, or murdered by the cristeros. You are all invited to made the necessary corrections, but I hope none erases it.--189.217.100.15 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, because this is English Wikipedia, English sources are preferred. It is a verifiability issue. When English sources are unavailable, such sources are permissable, but translation must be provided when requested by an editor. I am going to remove the section for the time being for the above reason. If their are English sources for the section, that would be preferrable. This is particularly true because this is a contrversial section and I believe it carries a POV. Their are also questions of accuracy. For example "socialist education" was the government's term, not the Cristero's. There are also notability issues - 90,000 people died in this conflict. What makes these victims more notable than others, and if they are so notable, wouldn't their be English sources. Mamalujo (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then would we find references in English. By the way, you have indeed asked a very good question, what is the difference between the assassination of an innocent bystander and that of a martyr? So why may the Saints of the Cristero War be considered martyrs? I think that the answer is that the Saints of the Cristero War were public and important people in their communities whose assassinations were intended as an example to other people or to silence their opinions. Moreover the Saints of the Cristero War did not carry weapons, did not kill other people in the revolt, they were executed because of their believing, and they preferred to die before abandoning their (work in their) communities.

Well, some of the Rural Teachers in the Cristero War were public and important people in their communities whose assassinations were intended as an example to other people or to silence their opinions. Moreover these Rural Teachers did not carry weapons in the Cristero Wars, did not kill other people in the revolt, they were executed because of their believing, and they preferred to die before abandoning their (work in their) communities. Let me point out the following fact, the Universidad Iberoamericana is a catholic institution in Mexico D.F. that has published books were the cristero's atrocities are criticized[2][3]. I am then sure we can find references in English, it is just question to look for them.

Finally I think you would also want to consider the lack of proper references in the section about the Cristero War saints. Is it true that there are stained glass windows that equate the state's persecution of Cristeros with the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany? I am really dying for seen a picture of that stained glass window, I suppose that the image of a concentration camp is out of the question, but I can only imagine the image of some Mexican (federal) soldiers sorting in a checking point those citizens who look like atheist, from those who look like catholic.

Best wishes, and see you soon, but not quite soon:--189.217.188.111 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

This article is highly biased. Instead of explaining the facts and the history behind the cristero war, this article seems to had been written with a pro-Catholic sentiment and often expresses opinions rather than facts. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Reading through it I see the usual mish-mash of one POV followed by the opposite POV to "balance it out". My general impression is that what the article really needs is inline citations.radek (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But along those lines I removed the stuff on freemasons and some alleged conspiracy per WP:FRINGE. It was sourced but two of the sources (this and this guy) straight up do not satisfy WP:RS, while the third [4] just says that Calles was a mason, not that he persecuted Catholics because he was a mason as the article text claimed.radek (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that deals with Freemasonry is a fringe conspiracy theory. The role of Freemasonry in Mexican history is well documented by notable historians, as is the role of Freemasonry in anticlericalism throughout the Latin world. You see from the article that even former President Fox makes the point. Mamalujo (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine and I'm not opposed to inclusion of a mention of this - as long as it's cited to reliable sources, which it wasn't previously.radek (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Something that I think does need to be made clearer here is which Masons we are talking about. The problem is that Freemasonry is not monolithic... there were (and are) multiple competing Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in Mexico, and they often disagreed. Part of Freemasonry may have had a role in Mexican history... and part of it may have supported Anticlerical political initiatives... but other parts did not. The article, however, talks about "Freemasonry" as if it were one single body with a unified stance. That is simply incorrect, and displays an Anti-masonic bias. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in, forgive the bold, I just want it easy to read. So it stands apart a bit from the rest of the discussion. I agree that bias and point-of-view nonsense has to be kept out...but let me tell you about Los Cristeros and their legacy.

If my grandmother had not been so incredibly brave and clever, I wouldn't be here. She and my mother were home alone when the Cristeros came to town. Those people pillaged, raped and burned the Church. "They were highwaymen, robbers, brigands and murderers," according to my mother who was about 19 when the attack happened.

This, since it is my family's recollection and they were there, cannot be introduced by me into the article, but I hope it gives you all a perspective of these people and what their caliber really was. They were no heroes. My grandmother was a God-fearing 3rd Order Carmelite and my whole family was deeply Catholic. No one at the time knew we were really Jews--Conversos. And my mother barely escaped with her life.76.195.85.164 (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)'

I too would like to add some perspective from my uncle that witnessed the Cristero War. My uncle, Luis Maldonado (my grandfather's older brother), told me his older brother was killed by the Cristero rebellion when they entered the village of Aguililla, in the state of Michoacan. He told me the following. The rebels came into town and some sympathizers would tell them which homes had men of fighting age, weapons, and food. The rebels would forcefully help themselves to whatever they needed. When the Cristeros started for my uncles home, he grabbed the family pistol and ran to escape capture. In those days, if the rebels found a pistol in a home, they would have destroyed everything in the home for fear that the home may belong to a potential enemy. As he headed for the hills, the men shot at hit but missed. As my uncle got over the hill, another group of Cristeros were waiting for him and they shot him dead. They took his pistol and left him there. My uncle Luis was around 8 years old when he saw his brother murdered. While he remained a devout Catholic until his death in 2007, he told me he always feared the church's bandits more than the Mexican government. Chubbylopez (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbylopez (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My commentaries have been taken into consideration in the main text, so I can safely erase them. Thanks a lot. Best wishes:--189.217.193.164 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry as a fringe theory or not aside, what evidence is there that the presidents followings the Constitution of 1917 were Freemasons and that they were actively pursuing anti-clergy/anti-Catholic policies as part of their Freemason backgrounds? Can we get some citations in here? Some kind of connection with Freemasonry other than one sentence in the introduction? Umma Kynes 02:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

Second Cristero War

I think this article should be extended to cover the second Cristero War ("La Segunda") which lasted from 1934 to 1941. Alternatively, a separate article (similar to the one in the Spanish Wikipedia) could be written. The part about "Martyrs of Education" could then be merged with the new section/article.

Neutral anti-Catholic?

I must object to the post above. Probably no one's reading this, but even though Chubby who is oviously not around now isn't anti-Catholic--he's repeating what his relative told him--I don't think there is room on the article for unsubstantiated anti-religion rhetoric there. I do not know what "the church's bandits" is supposed to mean, but the Mexican people never had to fear the Catholic Church sending an army of bandits in this time period.

I know the family feelings of anti-Catholicism because my people are Sefardita Jews, even though it is plain we became Catholic. Even as Catholics, my family had anti-Catholic inclinations, but that did not lead to violence, and my family never spoke nonsense about "bandits" affiliated with the Church.75.21.115.123 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

the Mexican people never had to fear the Catholic Church sending an army of bandits in this time period.

Just ass bandits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Legion_of_Christ (The Legion of Christ was a Cristero organization.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you really that stupid and ignorant. The Legion of Christ was founded 1941. It has nothing to do with the Cristeros of the 1920s. Why are Anti-Catholic bigots so ignorant in their bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.139.105 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Martyrs of the Education doesn't really belong in this article and ought to be its own article

The editor(s) who created this section did a very good job. Notwithstanding that, the section doesn't fall within the subject matter of this article. The Cristero war ended in 1929 and this section points out that the killings were between 1935 and 1939. Another source says 1931-1940. Moreover, some of the sources distinguish the Cristeros from the perpetrators of these atrocities, who are referred to as bragados. I'd suggest we create a new article with a link from here in the See Also section and also include that article within the Cristero War category. Thoughts? Mamalujo (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am sorry but I completely disagree with your point of view, because it cannot be said in the section about the aftermath of the war that: Particularly offensive to Catholics after the supposed truce was Calles's insistence on a complete state monopoly on education, suppressing all Catholic education and introducing secular education in its place: "We must enter and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth." The persecution was continued after the presidency of Calles by President Cárdenas, an anti-Catholic socialist, and did not relent completely until 1940, when President Manuel Ávila Camacho, a practising Catholic, took office., without also saying that murdering rural teachers was one of the Cristero's answers.--148.247.186.142 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are completely right 148.247.186.142. If it is said in the aftermath of the war section that Catholics were offended because President Calles insisted on suppressing all Catholic education and that Cárdenas is an anti-Catholic socialist President who continued with the persecution, then it must be said as well how some Catholics reacted to these offenses: by torturing and murdering rural teachers.

On the other hand I am going to edit any time soon the section about the Mexican Constitution of 1917. I cannot understand why it is said that Álvaro Obregón shared Carranza's anti-clerical sentiments, when Venustiano Carranza strongly opposed the final text of the articles 3 and 130. What is the point then?, is every Revolutionary General anti-catholic just because he got into the Mexican Presidency? Does the people not know that Mexican Constitution of 1917 was redacted by a Constitutive Congress, so that Carranza opinion was just one voice between more than two hundred congressmen?

Finally, I am still waiting for a hard proof that there are stained glass windows in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Guadalupe that equate the state's persecution of Cristeros with the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, or that the respective text is deleted (equal justice). --189.217.29.119 (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What this article really needs is a detailed historical analysis about what happened between the signature of the agreements in June 1929 and the end of Lazaro Cardenas' presidency in November 1940, because there are many important facts that need to be explained in a general context, for example:

• Why did Pope Pius XI publish the Encyclical Acerba Animi [5] in September 1932 expressing his concern for the strict implementation of Articles 3 and 130 in Mexico?

• Why does Brian Van Hove count at least 40 priests killed between 1926 and 1934 in "Blood-Drenched Altars" [6], if the war finished in 1929?

• What were the effects of the public call made by Plutarco Elias Calles in Guadalajara on July 20, 1934, when he announced in particular that "We must enter and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth" [7]?

• Why was Padre Pedro de Jesús Maldonado canonized by Pope John Paul II as a member of the 25 Cristero martyrs [8], although he was brutally beaten to death in 1937.

• Why did Pope Pius XI publish the Encyclical Firmissimam Constantiam [9] in March 1937 expressing his opposition to the "impious and corruptive school" and his support to the Catholic Action in Mexico?

• Why do some authors count almost three hundred rural teachers murdered between 1935 and 1939 [10], while others calculate at least 223 teachers victim of the violence between 1931 and 1940 [11]?

It is my personal point of view that neither Pope Pius XI, nor Pope John Paul II, nor a lot of authors consider(ed) that the bilateral hostilities ended in 1929, and we cannot do so either.

Best whishes:--189.217.47.71 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that both the Cristero saints and the Martyrs of the education elements include substantial reference to immediate post-war events, it would be grossly biased to remove only one. IAC-62 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. After the War, Catholic peasants who wanted control of their children's lives killed government-sent anti-Catholic ("Socialist") teachers in some parts of Mexico. And the government itself continued to murder priests and nuns. For example, Fr. Pro. Sad that that the oppression of the Catholic peasants continued and sad that they resisted, right? But this is not part of the Cristero War, so move it to another page. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.139.105 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Erasing text supported by five references in books.

I want to point out that the following text was erased even when it is supported by five references included in published books. Is that an acceptable attitude for editing an encyclopedia?, I do not think so.

It is important to recall that the anticlerical resolutions above were included in the Mexican Constitution as a consequence of the support given by the High Mexican Catholic Clergy to the dictatorship of Victoriano Huerta.John Lear (2001). Workers, neighbors, and citizens: the revolution in Mexico City. U of Nebraska Press. p. 261. ISBN 0803279973, 9780803279971. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)Ignacio C. Enríques (1915). The religious question in Mexico, number 7. I.C. Enriquez. p. 10.Robert P. Millon (1995). Zapata: The Ideology of a Peasant Revolutionary. International Publishers Co. p. 23. ISBN 071780710X, 9780717807109. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)Carlo de Fornaro, John Farley (1916). What the Catholic Church Has Done to Mexico. Latin-American News Association. p. 13–14.Peter Gran (1996). Beyond Eurocentrism: a new view of modern world history. Syracuse University Press. p. 165. ISBN 0815626924, 9780815626923. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

The anticlerical provisions in the Mexican Constitution of 1917 were not included just by chance. It is an article about the confrontation between the Catholic Church and the revolutionary governments in Mexico, so it important to say that these anticlerical provisions were included as a consequence of the confrontation between the Catholic church and the revolutionary governments in Mexico, even if we do not like the facts. Indeed Carranza Oregon and Calles fought against Victoriano Huerta dictatorhip. 189.217.17.16 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are completely right, it must be said in the Background to rebellion section that the confrontation between the Catholic Church and Villa, Zapata, Carranza, Obregon, Calles, etcetera began in 1913, when the High Mexican Catholic Clergy supported the dictatorship of Victoriano Huerta against the generals who subscribed the Plan de Guadalupe: Villa, Zapata, Carranza, Obregon, Calles, etcetera.148.247.186.142 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I have restored a paragraph in the Background to rebellion section that was deleted without an explanation; and I have also restored my own paragraph in this discussion section that an anon editor erased without my personal consent. I insists that text in the main article must be discussed in this section before being erased or modified, moreover if the text in "analysis" seems to be supported by several books. Finally, I really appreciate that none erased my opinions without my consent, I think we are mature enough so as to be able to discuss the ideas that we do not agree with. Best wishes: --148.247.186.142 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to included it, but I edited it for POV. I also removed a couple of the sources which aren't so reliable and are highly polemic - we don't really need five sources for the sentence. I also edited for factuality. The confrontation didn't really begin in 1913. The hierarchy supported Huerta as a resistence to already existing anti-clericalism. I've included a sentence to that effect. Mamalujo (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there is not evidence that Francisco I. Madero (the first revolutionary president elected in November 1911 and executed by Victoriano Huerta in 1913) was anticlerical at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.247.186.142 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the article say that? What change are you proposing? Mamalujo (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, you said that: With the Mexican Revolution in 1910 came an increase in anticlericalism, but the reference that you cite said other very different thing: The outbreak of the Mexican Revolution would lead to a resurgence of traditional liberal anticlericalism. Just consider the historic facts: 1.- Porfirio Diaz is president. 2.- Madero, Villa, Zapata, Carranza and other generals lead the revolution against Diaz. 3.- Francisco I. Madero (non anticlerical) becomes president. 4.- Victoriano Huerta executes Madero. 5.- Villa, Zapata, Carranza and other general lead the revolution against Huerta. Carranza (non anticlerical) defeats Villa and Zapata and becomes president. 6.- Obregon (Anticlerical) defeats Carranza and becomes president. 7.- Calles (Strongly anticlerical) becomes president. The fact is that not all the revolutionaries were anti-clerical. --148.247.186.142 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, I hope our conversation is not erased again.--148.247.186.142 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding not all revolutionaries not being anticlerical - granted. But the constitution produced by the revolution indisputably is. In fact, it is considered one of the most anti-clerical. I am glad to have the background section be accurate, but I think we have to be careful not to have surplussage. This is not a general article about the revolution, but is about the Cristero War. I think we need to try to keep the background section accurate but succinct. Cheers. Mamalujo (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute that the constitution was anticlerical. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased

This is definitely biased. Apparently there were anti-religious excesses in some places, but 90% of the things described here as "disregarding/offending/persecuting Catholics" are just standard progressive and democratic features, and they are still in the Mexican Constitution. Sources such as "Blood-drenched altars" by some Father are inappropriate, and given the equally ridiculous pro-Catholic bias of most of the other sources, I'm sure they could be balanced out by sources with a less obscurantist perspective.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article can use some polishing to eliminate emotional appeal. However, it is completely incorrect to say that "90% of the things described here...are just standard progressive and democratic features."

-If we lived by Article 130 of the 1917 constitution, anyone belonging to "Catholics for Obama" or "Catholics for Bush" would be punishable by law ("The formation of any kind of political group, the name of which contains any word or indication whatever that it is related to any religious denomination, is strictly prohibited.")

-It is not "progressive and democratic" to outlaw religious garb (whether worn by a priest, imam, rabbi, nun or anyone else).

-Is it progressive to say men and women can make a marriage promise, but to forbid men and women to make a promise not to marry? (as in religious vows).

-Nor is it "progressive and democratic" to say "Trials for violation of the above provisions shall never be heard before a jury."

-Do you call this "freedom of speech"? "Periodical publications of a religious character, whether they be such because of their program, title, or merely because of their general tendencies, may not comment on national political matters"?

-Or perhaps you call THIS democratic: Calles executing all of the 1928 presidential candidates except Obregon (his choice of candidate).

-Or maybe you think it is democratic to forbid parents from educating their children in Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/etc schools.

You are correct that it is important that the "good" elements not be forgotten. But this article is about a rebellion, a protest. It is unnecessary to say "but in a completely unrelated area, Calles was a good dad, etc." The rebellion was protesting restriction - so let's talk about the restrictions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermeervermillion (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

::: I wonder if Vermeervermillion is concerned about the treatment accorded to non-Catholic Christians who are harrassed in parts of Mexico by local officials and subjected to "extralegal" persecution. See here. Quis separabit? 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You realize that that argument is pure red herring? What does that have to do with the topic of this article at all? Volunteer Marek  22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources arguing for a generalized persecution of catholics - only of the institutions of the catholic church. It is also inaccurate to suggest that it was simply the people rising up against anti-catholicim. It was certain people in certain regions - not all of the country's catolics, or the outcome would have been different. We need to include all of the nuances as they are described in academic history sources. Not as they are described by catholic organizations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that may be true, but that still doesn't change the fact that present treatment of non-Catholics is neither here nor there as far as this article is concerned.

But it is not exactly true. If people are very devoutly Catholic then they will see persecution of the institution of the catholic church as persecution of themselves as catholics. You can't separate out the two. The Cristeros most certainly felt they were being persecuted as catholics.

Second part is not exactly true either. You say It is also inaccurate to suggest that it was simply the people rising up against anti-catholicim - and to support that you point to the fact that this rebellion wasn't country wide. The premise is true but the conclusion doesn't follow. In Jalisco and other affected states, it very much WAS "the people rising up against anti-catholicism". The fact that the people of Durango didn't, doesn't change the nature of what was happening in Jalisco. (The related issue was the perennial federalism vs. decentralization thing with Calles being seen as an advocate of strong central power at expanse of local autonomy, and also representing the interests of the more anti-clerical north at the expanse of the more religious center-south).

We need to include all of the nuances as they are described in academic history sources. Not as they are described by catholic organizations - this is right and I wholeheartedly agree. The thing is, I've had this article on my watchlist for something like two years+ years now and I've lost hope for it. The ongoing dispute is between hardline-catholics and hardline-atheists and these two groups have successfully squeezed out any kind of a moderate middle out of discussion. Volunteer Marek  23:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading sources (back when I read about this topic several years ago now) noting how the rebellion was often incited by right wing (pre-synarchist) clerics. I may remember wrong, I simply gave my impression of the sources I remember to have read - If I am shown to have remembered wrong then of course that changes the picture. That brings us to the second issue your loss of faith in the article's future (no joke intended): We'll I am not a hardliner in any of the senses you describe, but I am a hardliner when it comes to sources. We will let the sources take the middle ground - then the hardliners will be forced to the fringes where they belong. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you read but that's not right. Often the clergy tried to actually quell violent outbursts of the peasants. For example [12]. In other instances, I'm sure the catholic hierarchy was sympathetic but most of the insurrection had to do with the fact that the federales showed up and killed the local village priest because he performed a mass in his smock or something, which, understandably would piss off the local deeply religious peasants. And yes, there were "excesses". If you travel around Jalisco etc. you can still see the statues of the saints on buildings without heads because they were "executed" by federal firing squads. Of course these were just statues, but they did the same thing to people. Or herding them into churches and then burning these down (if you go to a mass in some places in this region, a lot of old people will still insist on hearing the mass from OUTSIDE the church and refuse to step in, precisely because of this legacy) Separating church and state, and reducing the influence of the church on politics are one thing - this revolt was provoked by some very repressive and non-democratic measures, which totally disregarded the wishes and feeling of native populations.

Oh yeah, some of the Cristeros were the same guys who previously fought for Zapata in the revolution, so describing them as "right wing", is a bit ... inaccurate.  Volunteer Marek  03:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I know some Cristeros were previous revolutionaries - that doesn't say much about right or leftwing on its own though. Looking through the few sources I have handy there is a clear tendency to define the Cristero uprising as a "conservative Christian" movement - not as a popular uprising.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The two things, "conservative Christian movement" and "popular uprising" are not mutually exclusive. And in a conflict such as this the traditional distinction between "rightwing" and "leftwing" breaks down. Most older sources (1960's and earlier) did portray the issues in purely Church vs. State terms. But that's not how it's described in modern sources. For example:

[13] "Although the conflict represented the final large scale popular uprising in twentieth century Mexico..." (also see the source for a detailed discussion of historiography). And:

[14] "In contrast to the orthodox account, Meyer argues that in terms of motivations, leadership, and organization, the cristiada was first and foremost a popular rebellion against a tyrannical state and "more recent work continues to treat the cristiada as a popular antistate rebellion but is more concerned with the question of peasant partisanship, ...".

Also, I think that some of the older authors were basically trying to fit the Cristeros into the same mould as the Vendee rebellion and the Chouans - there, though there are obvious parallels, that kind of approach completely ignored many aspects particular to revolutionary/post-revolutionary Mexico. Volunteer Marek  04:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I would just like to add that I am not a "hardline atheist". I have even created articles about priests and nuns whom I admire (Sister Mary Luke Tobin, Sister Dolores Hart, Sister Marjorie Tuite, Sister Philippa Brazill, Monika Hellwig, among others). But I am extremely wary because I can usually sense when someone has a political or religious agenda. I really do not want to mention usernames but suffice to say there was once an editor (I don't know if he is still around) who proclaimed on his talk page that he was into, among other things, Catholic apologetics. There was another editor, a female admin, whose userpage was a shrine to Catholic saints. My own particular weakness was Northern Ireland Troubles-related articles, as is easily ascertainable, but which I now largely avoid (at least bios), to which sectarianism and apologetics are linked inextricably. That is why I made the edits I have made on this article, which ·ʍaunus has at least partially vindicated.

My comment to Vermeervermillion was in response to his comments beginning with "The article can use some polishing to eliminate emotional appeal." But if I was out of line then I apologize. I have stricken the comment, which was never responded to anyway. I am not a hardliner with an agenda, and I want Wikipedia to be a true encyclopaedia not a vehicle for anyone (including myself) to push an agenda. Thanks.

Yours, Quis separabit? 01:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the article one more time, the one section which is obviously POV is the "Atrocities by the Cristeros against rural teachers" one. And that's not a pro-hardline-Catholic bias, it's the other one. First, as pointed out above, the scope of these events falls into the so-called "Second Cristero War" or just generally is usually treated separately from the events of the mid 20's. Second, as some of the sources indicate, the atrocities were committed by a minority of former Cristeros. Most former Cristeros adopted peaceful means of resistance. So this should be both rewritten and split off. Volunteer Marek  03:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a source stating that most cristeros adopted peaceful means of resistance.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

During this time period, yes. The source which is used to source the atrocities states this - [15] "In general this resistance was marked by nonviolence and reticence characteristic of the past. Yet, if most campesinos adopted nonviolent weapons, small groups of diehard Cristeros refused to abandon their guerrilla tactics". This also shows that we got some cherry-picking going on here. Volunteer Marek  04:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

POV text

I would like to point out that several years after this article was created, entire important sections of text, have no sources or reflinks, including, but not limited to, "Diplomacy and the uprising", "Cristero War", "Escalation of violence", and "Background to rebellion".

I also would add, for Mamalujo, that the term "reportedly" is not weaselry if there is no source for an assertion or claim, or if the source is plainly biased (i.e. the EWTN, which is a militant Catholic apologetics website). And "atheist" is most certainly not used as an epithet, not in any real encyclopedia. My father was a proud atheist as am I. This is an encyclopedia, not an ecclesial website or a site for propaganda (on either side) to go unchecked. Quis separabit? 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems a curious reluctance to address the underlying real issue behind the war. The clear fact is that the government was socialist, and wished to indoctrinate the public through education; that education would, among other things, jeopardize the church in the long run. Calle himself said as much. It was not only that the government was hostile to the church as a near term threat, church teachings were and are anti-socialist; the every nature of socialism denies the significance of the individual, in direct contradiction of the teachings of Christ; this was the reason for the suppression of Church education. That socialism and religion can never be reconciled was understood by the hierarchy in both the government and the church; indeed it is and was then understood by socialists throughout the world. In as deeply religious a nation as Mexico, war was inevitable. What is fairly surprising is that the government was forced to reach any kind of accommodation with the church at all; the position of the government at the time must have been quite weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.38.79 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of amply sourced RS material

Text attributed to three highly reputable and unbiased reliable sources was deleted with this summary: "I am not convinced that wording is neutral or in line with the best sources" The language is that of the reliable and unbiased sources. And they are in fact top sources. First cited is Anthony James Joes, who is a professor at St. Joseph University and is Chair of its Faculty Research Board, was formerly chair of its political science department and former Director of its International Relations Program. His doctorate is from an Ivy institution, University of Pennsylvania. His book is published by a major university press. The second source is Emily Edmonds-Poli who is a specialist on politics in Mexico. She is the director of the MA program in International Relations at University of San Diego. Her coauthor is also a specialist on Mexican Politics, a professor of political science at the University of San Diego and Director of its Trans-Border Institutute. Their publisher is known for producing books and journals for the academic market. The third, Vikram K. Chand received a PhD in Political Science from Harvard University. He is currently Senior Public Sector Management Specialist, The World Bank, New Delhi. His book is also from a major university press. I’ve added in the footnotes his text. I’ve also added as additional sourcing The Cambridge History of Latin America and from Triumphs and Tragedy: A History of the Mexican People by Ramon Eduardo Ruiz, who according to the L.A. Times was “ a renowned historian of Mexico and Latin America whose books included in-depth studies of the Mexican and Cuban revolutions”. He was an emeritus professor of history at UC San Diego and also had a distinguished career at Mexican institutions of higher education. His publisher is also known for academic works and textbooks. Mamalujo (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess we should now delete text deriving from the EWTN, catholicism.org, and other decidedly non-neutral and non-reliable sources. Quis separabit? 01:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A source's non-neutrality is a separate matter from its reliability. Sources with POV's are ok, especially if other notable sources are included. Brian Van Hove has a doctorate from Gregorian University in Rome. His work is well sourced and footnoted. Mamalujo (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why does Wikipedia require NPOV? Quis separabit? 01:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Text related to the following rv:

Source: Bethell, Leslie, The Cambridge History of Latin America, p. 593, Cambridge University Press, 1986 -- contains no information relating to quote for which it is putatively credited in part

Source: BLESSED MIGUEL PRO JUAREZ, PRIEST AND MARTYR (Catholic News Agency 2007) -- source provides no objective referencing and is IMHO unreliable. Quis separabit? 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bethell says Pro was executed without trial. And CNS is a reliable source. Numerous other reliable and unbiased sources, including the likes of the Encylopedia Britannica, say he was falsely accused or presented with trumped-up charges and executed without trial. I've added the sources. Mamalujo (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I just replaced

"hanged" for "hung." Here is why:
"Hanged, as a past tense and a past participle of hang, is used in the sense of “to put to death by hanging,” as in Frontier courts hanged many a prisoner after a summary trial. A majority of the Usage Panel objects to hung used in this sense. In all other senses of the word, hung is the preferred form as past tense and past participle, as in I hung my child's picture above my desk. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000) Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture. Additional reference

There are several other depictions in popular culture. "The Fugitive" (1947 film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fugitive_%281947_film%29 staring Henry Fonda depicts an unnamed priest in the 1930s during the religious persecutions following the war. It is based on a 1940 book by Graham Greene "The Power and the Glory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_and_the_Glory. Several other adaptions of the book were made for TV and stage. These are cited in the book article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletknight72 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

The group is mentioned in the lead but their role is not explained in the body of the article. What did they do exactly? Rmhermen (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to research. They fought against KKK who sent private telegrams to President Calles and offered $10,000.00 Ten Thousand dollars to fight the Catholic church and pay for government soldiers to maintain the Catholic ban on religious practice when they secretly found out that the Knights of Columbus offered one thousand dollars to the Cristero rebels. Google is your friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartyBowl1989 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improving the article. If you have appropriate sources, please use them to fix the flaw I noticed in the article. Rmhermen (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I found this section very confusing. The extent of the role of the Knights of Columbus in supporting and funding the Cristeros is unclear. Was the $1000 all? What is that in current money? Did they send it to the rebels? If so, when and where. How was it transferred? Even more confusing is the relation of the KKK. Did they also donate money to Calles, or just offer? Did he reject their offer? Was this the extent of their involvement? Glaucus (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Knights also lobbied and met with the U.S. President for a diplomatic intervention in the war. They published and distributed 5 million pamphlets to educate Americans about what was going on in Mexico, as it did not receive much press coverage. I know there are other aspects, for example the federal troops after locating the priests and clerics within a town would often search out the Knights as well. A number of the martyred and beatified priests were Knights. There obviously needs to be a little more pertinent sourced material on the subject in the article. I will do some research. Others should feel free as well. Mamalujo (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made some additions. Mamalujo (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Socialist education and incidents against rural teachers

It seems the article goes off track in this section. Perhaps this information about teachers should be split off into its own article since it is no longer about the Cristero War, but a different somewhat related subject. Taram (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cristero War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is clearly written with sympathy to the Catholic Church-it is not objective enough for me. 189.162.129.148 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 12:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cristero War. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20091108133917/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_18111926_iniquis-afflictisque_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_18111926_iniquis-afflictisque_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent category addition

I've removed an unsourced and nonsensical category. "Persecution by atheists". The edit summary accompanying the insertion says:

(according to the article Calles’ Mexico has been characterized as an atheist state, and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico)

While that may be true, it does not support "persecution by atheists", so I've removed it until reliable sources are provided which convey that the persecution was because of atheism. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

State atheism is a popular term used for a government that is either antireligious, antitheistic or promotes atheism. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen. Calles was a staunch atheist and anticlerical and during his term as president, he moved to enforce the anticlerical articles of the Constitution of 1917, which led to a violent and lengthy conflict known as the Cristero Rebellion or the Cristero War. His regime been characterized as an atheist state, and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico.--Jobas (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We need reliable sources which convey that religious persecution was done because of atheism. What you've described above constitutes anti-clericalism and religious persecution, so I've made sure the article is in both of those categories, but the "persecution by atheists" is original research and unsourced. (You should know this already, as you participated in a discussion which concluded exactly that.) Xenophrenic (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "according to the article Calles’ Mexico has been characterized as an atheist state, and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico" should be considered for review for three reasons. First, the Calles administration actually sponsored the creation of a Mexican church, the Mexican Catholic Apostolic Church. On the other hand, the document that supports this last statement (American Catholics and Mexican Anticlericalism, 1933–1936) was written in 1958, which gives us almost fifty years of new research and articles to work with. This one in particular feels cherry picked. The third reason this sentence should be reviewed is that, even though the Catholic Church was fiercely persecuted, no other religious association was treated like that. That single handedly brings down the whole “antireligious” hypothesis. Even taking into consideration that other religious associations were a really small minority during this time, the fact that the institutional violence focused only on one organization (one with huge political power and social influence) can be seen as more in line with the nation-state building efforts of the time than one of anti-religiousness. --Erick Rozo (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cristero War. 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/20150218091702/http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/constmex/pdf/consting.pdf to http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/constmex/pdf/consting.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Fighting for religious freedom?

There's a sentence at the end of the "Church and State Conflict" which reads: "To destroy the Church's influence over the Mexican people, anti-clerical laws were instituted, beginning a ten-year religious conflict that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians who took up arms to fight for their religious freedom". I'll remove the last part of the sentence, "who took up arms to fight for their religous freedom".

The reason is that the sentence establishes a subjective undertone to the otherwise impartial information that was given previously. Even if the personal motivation of one given individual was “religious freedom”, as a whole, the Cristero affair can be seen more as a conflict between the old and new Mexican elites: the church and the revolutionary state. Presenting them as martyrs that died for civil rights undermines the fact that the Catholic Church had been a huge political and social influence in México for centuries. The church, as an institution, was fighting to keep their influence and power in law making. This can be read in almost all of the books and articles written and published by the most respected Mexican historians. Erick Rozo (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

-Response- I can't speak to "the most respected Mexican historians". This statement, "The church, as an institution, was fighting to keep their influence and power in law making", sure sounds reductionist likely marxist, i.e. religious events are reducible to political and economic motivations. Jean Meyer in his 3 volume work also attacks just that view. Meyer gives two reasons for the beginning of the war. The governing elites were imbued with American-Protestant-Liberal views. [who saw Catholicism as the worst enemy. e.g. the congressional funds appropriated to send a good Protestant mission to the newly American Catholics in Alaska (Orthodox were no different from Catholic in the eyes of the congressmen), Blaine amendments, and attempts to drastically restrict or eliminate immigration from Catholic countries in Europe]. The second reason was the government's belief that the Catholic Church was a rival to the power of the state. There were similar conflicts between elites imbued in American Protestant thought and the people. E.g. Rafael Carrera in Guatemala.

Meyer concludes the Cales government acted very similarly to other totalitarian states in the first half of the 20th century in its attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church. Below I give a passage from Meyer's 1976 English translation in which he makes this connection. You can argue with his conclusions; however, he was the first to go out study this war. He went into the field and took interviews. He went into the archives. I trust a historian who tries to let the sources speak for themselves than "almost all of the books and articles written and published by the most respected Mexican historians." The work of a scholar who does the most and best research is more reliable than a consensus of reductionist historians.

Page 208 of Meyer, Jean A. The Cristero Rebellion: The Mexican People between Church and State, 1926-1929. Cambridge Latin American Studies.No. 24. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

“The course of that decade, and only for limited time, the Mexican state became God and hid behind its own myth, that of the revolution, the myth which disguised the existence of the new ruling class.” “Knowing nothing of the legitimacy of tradition or formal legality, this power fell back on its own absolutism, and gave itself an official ideology, a single mass political party, a monopoly on information and propaganda, and finally declared war on society in order to assure its own dominance over the scene of dislocation.” “The police and the Army were thrown against various social groups, the peasants, the city dwellers, the middle classes, in order to break down the social structures in the basic rural social nucleus.” “The ‘colonial’ war waged against the Cristeros was similar, with its enforced resettlement of the population, to the totalitarian system concentration camps. The attempt to destroy the church and, in the shorter term, the family (especially in Tabasco and after the experiment with ‘social education’), was accompanied by the systematic partitioning of the population by the Party and its satellite organizations” (208).

I will wait two weeks for any comments. If no one objects I will make the change back. April 4, 2018

Safinski (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Holy See as belligerent

It is inaccurate to include the Holy See as a belligerent in this war, being that they did not directly support the taking up of arms by Cristeros, they did not canonize anyone who did so, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes they did it even says it later in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacheyexcellent (talk • contribs) 03:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hacheyexcellent, I reverted your infobox addition of Holy See to the "supporters" of the rebel side; The few histories I've seen (even sources sympathetic to the government) have all been emphatic about the official neutrality of the Vatican, at least as regards the fighting itself. The fact that their acceptance of the US-brokered arreglos was sufficient to end major hostilities (for a time anyway) is definitely suggestive, but do you have anything concrete that shows a policy of active tangible support to the rebels? Thanks 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:2566:EE89:3238:D86B (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:2566:EE89:3238:D86B (talk) I had just seen images on the internet everywhere of them being featured and I thought one of those people who just go around trashing things omitted it to be jerks. Had no concrete source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacheyexcellent (talk • contribs) 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo of hanging

I was wondering whether the photos of the hangings are necessary? Especially if there are no prior warnings regarding them appearing in the article. Perhaps a description of what occurred in writing would suffice? 86.183.32.105 (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Klan

The prominent inclusion of the group synonymous with racist violence in the U.S. -- especially when "balanced" by including the Knights of Columbus on the other side -- reads like it came from a bullet point on a pamphlet intended to smear the government by association.

Then, the totally unrelated third (final) sentence of the section reads like the author inadvertently included the next bullet point on that pamphlet, reporting a private telegram to France that reveals Calles's sinister socialist plan:

In the mid-1920s, high-ranking members of the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan offered Calles $10,000,000 to help fight the Catholic Church. The offer came after the Knights of Columbus in the US secretly offered a group of Cristero rebels $1,000,000 in financial assistance to be used to purchase guns and ammunition – this was being done in secret after the extreme measures taken by Calles to destroy the Catholic Church. That was after Calles had also sent a private telegram to the Mexican Ambassador to France, Alberto J. Pani, to advise him that the Catholic Church in Mexico was a political movement and must be eliminated to proceed with a socialist government "free of religious hypnotism which fools the people... within one year without the sacraments, the people will forget the faith...."

2600:1702:6D1:28B0:FDAB:CA4F:3B6B:E9A1 (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop the madness! (KKK & KoC)

If anyone had bothered to actually peak at the article, the Ku Klux Klan and Knights of Columbus' aid was not 'negligible'. Their support was open and were prepared to chip in to the war effort. Frankly, I've done all I can do, as WP:3RR is stopping me from proceeding this war. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Negligible" comes from the Lawrence 2020 source; whether it was "open" is irrelevant (and the citation to unidentified "Letters found in Calles' library" doesn't really aid further research). But regardless: is "prepared to chip in" really the threshold for prominent placement in the Supporters infobox? Are there any sources that even claim that the "offer" was accepted? Or is there any reason to believe that this amount, even if accepted, would have been more impactful/notable than support from other third parties? The fact that no mention of it is made anywhere else in the article would indicate "no"; and so the sole purpose for its inclusion would appear be to smear Calles by association with racist terrorism (especially with the attempt to "balance" that by including the equally-negligible support from the comparatively-benign KoC). The fact that the article's Klan section (quoted in full in above) is mostly filled out by a wholly-unrelated attempt to smear Calles as a malevolent godless socialist just makes the whole thing farcical. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:81BC:3778:6DEB:A50B (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

At it's core, the Cristero War was all about Catholicism. Catholicism was very much hated by the Klan, who sought to exterminate it. Therefore, they offered to give what I estimate to be over 150,000,000 USD to fight Catholics and continue secularist policies. Therefore, no, Wikipedia's inclusion of the Klan as a part of this war was not to posthumously slander Calle. It was a notable footnote that deserved contextualization, thus the length of it's section. The KKK was and is a notable terrorist group inside the United States. It should not be left out, no matter if they did or didn't do anything in the war effort. I don't care if the KoFC is included. They've never shown themselves to operate as an army. One more thing... Kind of suspicious how random IPs in the US keep showing up to keep the KKK and KoFC out of the Cristero War using the same language and mannerisms. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the KKK is a notable terrorist group in the US -- best-known for its hostility to minorities, including Mexicans -- should raise, not lower the bar for their inclusion as "supporters" on one side of a conflict that in no way involved them. The fact that the full extent of this support is a supposed offer -- with no claim it was even seriously received, let alone accepted or paid -- would make its inclusion wildly disproportionate even if the payor was a group without inflammatory associations. I understand that the Klan is vehemently anti-Catholic, and that reliable sources have repeated the claim of an offer of payment: at least one of those sources calls it "negligible". Perhaps the Klan's article would be the appropriate place to dig in to their general anti-Catholic stance, rather than trying to shoehorn it here "no matter if they did or didn't do anything"? I've left the section in the article repeating the claims in detail for somebody more competent to rework; the inclusion in the infobox / category list is just over-the-top slanted. Thanks (those suspicious random IPs in the US) 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:406E:5AE9:174F:1BB2 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. I suppose I may have been wrong. Also, do you know anything about why all but 1 of these suspicious IPs (including yours) comes from Ann Arbor? Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

One might infer that related edits from similar IPs from the same geographic region are in fact the same individual editor; alternatively, maybe there is something nefarious afoot? Who's to say! Certainly one risk of anonymous editing is somebody plugging your IP into a geo-IP database and casually mentioning it in an unrelated thread. Holiday greetings from suspicious US IPs! 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:340F:E0E4:F759:2E71 (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.35 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The KKK in the USA never had millions of dollars --and the many scholary studies of the KKK do nor mention any offer to Mexico. The source cited is a picture book by an author (Meyer) who is not an expert on the KKK. Meyer used oral histories so she's reporting a century-old rumor, So I deleted the claim. Rjensen (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox/Result: "Peace agreement"

This currently reads

Mexican government signs peace agreement with Cristeros

with Cristeros linked to the Liga. Is that a separate agreement from the "arreglos" brokered by Ambassador Morrow between Calles and Leopoldo Ruiz y Flóres (the Holy See's representative in Mexico)? The Liga article itself confirms that they were not party to the "Arreglos" agreement:

After intense and lengthy negotiations by the U.S. ambassador Dwight W. Morrow, an accord (Arreglos) acceptable to both Calles and the Catholic hierarchy was reached and the bishops ordered the LNDLR to cease military and political activities and the Cristeros to lay down their weapons.[17] A number of Cristeros continued fighting, in what some have called "La Segunda", that is the second Cristiada, but they did so without the support of the Church.[18] The LNDLR's criticisms of the episcopal hierarchy's signing on to the Arreglos were blunted given the Vatican's support of the diplomatic accord, but also because Catholic Action, a new lay group firmly under the hierarchy's control, was used to rein in radicalized Catholic organizations following the Arreglos.[19]

If there was a second Calles-Liga agreement, that absolutely deserves a mention in the article; if not, then the infobox should be corrected. I see from past Talk threads and several of the sources that there is overwhelming pushback at any suggestion of Vatican involvement in the conflict -- but could we thread the needle by leaving unstated the obvious inference from the fact that "the bishops" were able to "order [the cristeros] to cease military activities"? Just something like

Mexican government and Mexican Catholic hierarchy sign arreglos peace agreement"

Thoughts / objections? 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:340F:E0E4:F759:2E71 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Klan, again for SuperSkaterDude45

SuperSkaterDude45, opening another thread here for you to reply, and to focus things I'll summarize my understanding of the last two threads on the subject:

• the Klan's "support" is not mentioned anywhere in the article, except for a paragraph asserting the support that veers into an unrelated anticommunist screed. My inference then is that this "support" is included not because it was impactful, but rather to tarnish the Mexican side of the conflict by association with a racist American terrorist org.

• I have no objection to the inclusion of the Klan's support in the article's body; just to its inclusion in the infobox.

• I have seen nobody claim (let alone a reliable source) that the Klan's offer of support was even accepted, let alone paid

• I have seen no claims that even if were paid, the support was anything beyond "negligible" (and at least one source, Lawrence 2020, in fact calls it "negligible")

• I originally read the KoC's inclusion on the other side as an attempt at "balancing" one arguable inclusion with another (Lawrence 2020 also calls the KoC support "negligible"), but somebody added them back in, and after further reading, their involvement in arms smuggling from Canada does seem pretty remarkable; so I stopped reverting that. No strong feelings either way there.

Hope this helps. I'm no expert on the subject, any pointers to sources on the Klan's support for the Calles government would be genuinely appreciated. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:9C2B:6A86:92A0:29ED (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @2600:1702:6D1:28B0:9C2B:6A86:92A0:29ED and 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:9C2B:6A86:92A0:29ED: General inclusions in infoboxes are due to being mentioned in within the article itself. not to mention, the Klan gave over millions of dollars in support of the Mexican government. This was even noted in the main Ku Klux Klan article with a reference that supported the claim. Klan involvement is well within consensus and more sources label the Klan's involvement as notable for inclusion. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:29, 09 January 2022 (UTC)

You assert that there are sources, but haven't named one -- the only source I've seen reference the Klan's support (Lawrence 2020) explicitly calls it "negligible". The past tense in "was even noted in the main article" seems like a bit of a red flag -- was the source there also unspecified "Letters found in Calles' library"?. If the issue is that ~ the article has a [poorly-sourced and incoherent] section on Klan support, therefore the Klan's support should go in the infobox, removing the section seems like the obvious solution. I personally would prefer the section stay, since it makes the article's bias pretty clear, but it would definitely be more encyclopedic without it. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:9C2B:6A86:92A0:29ED (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. from https://middleearthmag.com/a-clash-of-knights-the-american-proxy-war-during-the-cristero-rebellion/ : "So, according to Meyer in his book La Cristiada, several high-ranking Klansmen reached out to President Calles with an offer of about $10,000 to be used for purchasing weapons. Calles’s government did not accept the offer, and there are few records indicating that Klansmen served as mercenaries in Mexico between 1926 and 1929.". Please stop adding this ridiculous smear. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:9C2B:6A86:92A0:29ED (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"...which were anti-Catholic measures aimed at imposing state atheism"

Evidently there are a number of editors who feel strongly that the lede must assert that the 1917 constitution was not only secularist and anticlerical, not just that it disproportionately affected Catholics, but actually "aimed at" being specifically "anti-Catholic". This seems pretty blatantly un-encyclopedic and ahistorical, but given the *wildly* ahistorical comparison made in this edit comment, that's presumably the intent. As it stands today it clearly announces the article's biases from the start, which is at least helpful for the critical reader. Still, maybe worth discussing? Thanks (North American IPs) 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:AC37:EA1D:39F7:1331 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I've seen a number of sources refer to the Calles administration as "state atheist", and in his private opinions Calles expressed antipathy towards the Church, but I've never come across a RS referring to the 1917 Constitution articles as "anti-Catholic". Seems unencyclopedic and honestly a little absurd that an anti-Catholic body of law would have been supported (and mostly triumphed) in an overwhelmingly Catholic country Tepetzintle (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated information under "Background"

Everything under the subheading "Background" in the "Background" section seems redundant. It is simply a summarized (and somewhat biased) version of the rest of that same section. Thestereotypebuster (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Meyer's La Cristiada

I finally broke down and got a print copy of this. I'll quote the entire referenced section (p.153):

Attacks upon the Knights' Mexican Fund came especially from the Ku Klux Klan and its supporters. In fact, the Klan was quick to denounce the Knights' plan and to offer $10 million to the Mexican government in its fight against Papism. The KKK also sent telegrams of congratulations to Calles, asking him repeatedly for the full annihilation of the Church south of the Rio Grande. Moreover, even the U.S. Senate took notice as it hotly debated the Knights' fund for three hours in January 1927. The debate was led by Senator James Thomas Heflin, who contributed to KKK magazines and lectured around the country to audiences made up largely of KKK members.

Beyond confirming that Meyer does not claim that the outrageously-large "offer" was paid (or accepted), it's also clear that the only reason he brings up the Klan is to cast aspersions on those who criticized the KoC's funding of the rebels. The following paragraph ends rather ominously:

Eventually, the authors of these outlandish accusations were exposed as frauds, although these types of attacks continued for years. This necessitated on certain occasions the intervention of the K of C Catholic Affairs Committee to curb the spread of such untrue and malicious statements and pursue appropriate legal avenues to ensure that satisfactory retraction was made.

My takeaway is that giving the Klan a whole section is giving it undue weight -- even Meyer stuffed it in as an aside in his KoC section, and he's pretty transparent about where his bias lays.

But, since it seems like this myth of Klan support is still pervasive, maybe a Klan section clearly spelling out where this claim comes from would be helpful to casual readers.

2600:1702:6D1:28B0:874:91FC:5371:3055 (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Calles government position

Here is recent scholarship that explains what the Calles government tried to do regarding the Catholic Church: from Robert Weis, "The Revolution on Trial: Assassination, Christianity, and the Rule of Law in 1920s Mexico." Hispanic American Historical Review. (May 2016) , Vol. 96 Issue 2, p319-353, page 323 states: "Against claims that revolutionaries sought to destroy the church, officials insisted that they pursued the rule of law. During his presidential campaign, Calles clarified that he was not an “enemy of religion”; he approved of “all religious beliefs because [he] consider[ed] them beneficial for the moral progress that they encompass.” He was, however, an enemy of “the political priest, the scheming priest, the priest as exploiter.”18 This position of lauding religion while inveighing against earthly ecclesiastic machinations was central to the trial and to the justification of the anticlerical campaign in general. As president, Calles expressed determination to enforce the laws of the 1917 constitution that mandated secular education, banned foreign priests as well as confessional political parties and newspapers, nationalized all church properties, and granted local governments the authority to limit the number of priests." Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen; my objection to the wording was not about Calles's position re: religion/catholicism in particular, but about ventriloquizing the Klan to sneak in the factual assertion that he was waging "a war against the Catholic church". If we wanted to stick to the single source for this alleged offer -- Jean Meyer's illustrated coffeetable book on the glorious Mexican people's war for religious liberty -- something like "encouraging him to annihilate the church south of the Rio Grande" would at least make it clear that the sentence is characterizing the Klan's views, rather than making a factual claim about "Calles's war on the Catholic Church". I really didn't expect that my edit going the other direction (simply taking no position on whether the Catholic Church itself was a belligerent in the conflict) would be so controversial though, so I'll leave sorting that out to you all. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Alleged KKK and KoC involvement

It would seem that once again, there seems to be a consensus that the KKK and KoC were involved, but this involvement is constantly being removed, from one specific, very odd individual who keeps vehemently saying "NO"! Interestingly, this individual seems to use the same or similar IP addresses all reporting back to Atlanta, GA and Ann Arbor, MI. Given the variety of addresses from two very specific geographical areas, it's very possible this individual is using a VPN or the Tor browser. This one person seems to be in conflict from almost everyone else who has added onto this article. This type of revisionist history is unfortunately very common in today's times, when fearmongering about "indoctrination" and "critical race theory" are constantly blasted over the news from certain media sources. It's unfortunate that some people would try to paint an organization such as the KKK in a positive light to fit a certain narrative, but that type of biased politics has no place on Wikipedia, where it is supposed to be objective and politically neutral, as to not favor one side or the other. I will keep my personal politics out of this, however it is painfully obvious why someone would try to erase KKK involvement in something; it is because they have a narrative to push. And that will just simply not be tolerated here. If you are looking to tell everyone how great the KKK is, by all means, do that, but please, not on Wikipedia. There are other websites (although not mainstream) that will support that narrative, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Trainerash123 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it's me, (one of?) the odd individual(s).

I would ask that, instead of building yourself a narrative about my location and use of high-tech hacking tools, you instead provide a source for the claim that the organization synonymous with racist terrorism in the US "supported" one side of the war (note: Meyer's coffeetable book does not make this claim, see above); without a source, it's pretty clearly an attempt to smear the government side of the conflict by association.

To try to characterize editor(s) removing that smear as "painting the KKK in a positive light" really strains the "assume good faith" policy.

Reverting unsourced misinformation is not "political bias", and issuing ultimatums is not building consensus.

Hope this clears things up, but there are at least four other threads on this page on this exact subject that may provide more context. Please stop adding this blatant smear to the infobox. Thanks! ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm kind of done arguing about this, it's pretty obvious you're part of a fringe group of people who think the KKK was some great organization and is trying to erase any of their history from discrimination against other groups of people, such as Catholics in this case, to paint them in a positive light. You're in disagreement with almost everyone else here. The only "smear" here is you trying to champion some valiant effort to make the KKK look great by using revisionist history and trying to erase their participation in historical events. By all means, put on your white hood and spread your KKK propaganda somewhere else, but this is a POLITICALLY NEUTRAL website, how many times does this need to be said? I don't care how great you think the KKK was, THERE ARE OTHER PLACES TO STATE THAT OPINION. But Wikipedia, is NOT, and never will be one of those places. Me and other editors will keep restoring the factual, historical information no matter how many times you try to erase it. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainerash123 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

😬 ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever actually read our WP:NPOV policy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note that the body of the article does not say that the KKK supported Calles just that members offered to support Calles. We can't say something in the infobox which is neither sourced or in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

On the Knights of Columbus role, read pp 78 and 97-101 and 193 of M. Elizabeth Ann Rice, The diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico, as affected by the struggle for religious liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929 (Catholic University of America Press, 1959) online Rice does not mention the KKK. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I might have been the only editor who was taking issue with the KoC -- but that was fully on the basis of the Lawrence 2020 ref from the article calling their support "negligible", which played into my concern that the KoC was added as some sort of false "ideological balance" for the inclusion of the Klan.

I've definitely come around since then to supporting their placement in the infobox; I haven't read the Rice article, but Dodson's 2019 Fanáticos, Exiles, and Spies pretty convincingly laid out their covert and overt support; even Meyer's three-volume history identifies them as founding members of the Liga. And of course neither mentions the Klan at all (going by archive.org full-text searches for the latter).

So belated apologies for confusing this discussion even more by tethering those two American groups based on my own ignorance and bad assumptions. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism by the Klan

This article is being vandalized by members or supporters of the KKK . It needs to be locked to prevent further vandalism. 174.240.65.189 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if any of the three editors that have brigaded this article in the past week earnestly believe that removing an unsourced claim attempting to smear the Mexican government by associating them with one of the most notorious racist organizations in the world is "supporting the klan" or if this is low-effort trolling, but I appreciate the chance to respond outside of the edit summaries!

Either way, if you think something belongs in the article and you have a Reliable source for it, I don't think anybody is going to have a problem with that: for instance, you removed the note in the article that "There is no evidence that the offer was accepted"; that was unsourced -- it's technically true AFAICT, and I thought it was useful context, but I didn't re-add it.

I did notice that there were additional unsourced claims in that section (I posted the entirety of the context for the Klan from Meyer's coffeetable book above, which in turn is the article's only source for the supposed "offer"). It says nothing about "high-level members", nor anything about the offer being made to Calles personally, and it is framed in the context of the Knights of Columbus's much better-established support for the rebels. If you have another reliable source that makes these more specific claims, feel free to add a citation! I would love to see that section grow -- just, not into unsourced misinformation.

Hope that clears things up, sincerely, ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC) (not "the Klan")

You claim slander, which it isn't. If anything it'd liable if it was a lie. I assumed you're a Klan member because you defend them like you are one. 35.141.108.117 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

I see you undid Rjensen's edit as explained below in this thread, with another outrageous personal attack in the edit message. Would you care to discuss your reasoning? As I laid out in my reply, I feel the section would be worth saving, but it's hard to justify giving a whole section to such an inflammatory claim -- especially one that can be so easily misinterpreted -- on the basis of a one-sentence aside from a single source.

Can you help me out here? It sounds like you have a good mind for details and a solid understanding of the Klan's involvement with this affair. Could you help contextualize that section in a way that avoids leaving readers misinformed?

Thanks in advance, looking forward to working with you! ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The KKK in the USA never had millions of dollars --and the many scholarly studies of the KKK do nor mention any $$ offer to Mexico. The source cited is a picture book by an author (Meyer) who is not an expert on the KKK. Meyer used oral histories so she's reporting a century-old rumor, So I deleted the claim. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's probably the most reasonable solution; but the fact that this claim has taken up such a strong place in the imagination of a whole generation of Reddit users does make me worry that by removing all mention (a) we'll attract even more disruptive aggrieved editors crying "censorship" every few months, and (b) we lose the avenue to contextualize the claim and educate those who may have heard about it from a Youtube video but actually care to learn the truth.

OTOH I've been unable to find any sources to provide that context in the past ~18 months and don't foresee doing so in a defensible way in the near future either, so removal is probably better than the status quo.

Let's see how it goes! ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST3150

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 6 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PALOND03 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GLGaglyport.

— Assignment last updated by GLGaglyport (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)