Talk:Miguel Pro/Archive 1

Miguel Pro was not a Fascist!

He was a Jesuit, about the furthest thing in the Catholic tradition from a fascist. So many Jesuits died at the hands of fascism in Poland, Holland, Germany and many other places. I would recommend, by the way, Catholic Martyrs of the 20th Century by Robert Royal. There is a lot of information on Miguel including the backfiring of the photo op wherein his murderers tried to get him to beg for mercy. That photo, according to Royal, became a popular keepsake of Catholics in Mexico to the point where it had to be banned. Also, Pro was arrested not for any attempt on anyone's life but for refusing to break the seal of the Confessional and give up incriminating or sensitive information.

Controversy

I would like to clear this matter, and have a constructive discussion. First of all, I'd lke to know which of the facts listed in the article are the subject of controversy? Ahuizote

Well, there are the police and court records that show he participated in the assesination attempt. He never denied it. The vatican aknowledged this and did not put him together with other mexicans saints because it wanted no diplomatical problems with the mexican goverment. The literature cited by the bad article is a book written by a Lothar Groppe, a german who said that the liberation from the nazis was wrong.

MIguel Pro fought to stablish a totalitarian, teocratic and undemocratic goverment in Mexico, and was therefore an enemy of democracy and a fascist. We democracy-loving mexicans want this to be known and clarified

Ahuizote

Aricle is full of lies...

Pro was not fascist activist. He had no participation of assasination Obregón

Historical background: POV

Childhood: religious extremist is (untrue) POV formulation

Return to Mexico: "Cales saw the fascist mesage" is untrue and POV - this mesage was not fascist...

Arest and Execution: POV, untrue - Pro had no participation of assasination Obregón Cinik

I reverted to old good version.

POV and cleanup tags added

It would be helpful if people could at least try to produce a neutral article about the facts of Pro's life - hurling epithets like "martyr" and "fascist" about won't result in a good article. I know nothing about Pro, apart from mentions in Graham Greene's The Lawless Roads. I don't think I know anything more after reading this article, which is a shame. --  ajn (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have probably removed too much in some areas, and not enough in others. It would be good if any additions to this page stuck to Wikipedia:NPOV and avoided the hysterical tone which has marred this article. Additions should also be properly referenced. I've removed the "references" section, because one was a hagiography and the other two seemed to be general Mexican news/history sites with no specific references to Pro. --  ajn (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why Obregon?

A question this article never addresses is why an anti-government activist, whether guilty or not of attempted murder, would attempt to kill a former president rather than the person in charge. Apparently Obregon and Calles had a plan for an alternating presidency, with one taking over after the other every new term (Mexican law then and now prevents incumbent presidents from seeking re-election), and maybe Obregon was more vulnerable. He was killed after he took office as Calles' successor, killed by a Catholic activist and cartoonist in fact, though Alan Riding's book "Distant Neighbors" (1985) notes "many suspected Calles himself was behind the murder." If this is an accurately-reported suspicion, was there suspicion Calles was involved in the Miguel Pro attempt as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.49.228 (talk • contribs)

Totaly Disputed

Pro was executed from order of rule. He was newer tried. He denied his participation and assassins too. No proof against him in his case. Etc. (Lothar Groppe: P. Michael Pro SJ, ISBN 80-7113-052-4, in czech). Cinik 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Argument Begging

Regardless of Pro's guilt or innocence in the crime for which he was executed, the last line of this article at present was clearly written by someone with a bone to pick, and pushes an argument (one not even referred to in the body of the article). To whit: "Their publication [photos showing Pro as his execution] outside of Mexico focused world attention on the catholic experiment on creating an american version of vatican in Mexico, wich ended in failure and treason by the catholic authorities, who in the negotiations known as "Arreglos", exchanged the lives of the rebels for economic profit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.49.228 (talk • contribs)

Quite right. I've come to the conclusion that the only solution is to scrub everything in the article for which a reference isn't provided, and insist rigorously on neutral sources for anything added. Given that most of the information about Pro on the web is in hagiographies, that's going to result in a very short article, but that's better than the current situation. --ajn (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A fresh start

The old version of the article is here. Please make sure any information returned to the article is properly verifiable and neutral. --ajn (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC Comment: Starting with the summary, content was made NPOV with the addition of alleged. The second statement was simplified. Electrawn 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)