Talk:The Power and the Glory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:GrahamGreene The PowerAndTheGlory.jpg

Image:GrahamGreene The PowerAndTheGlory.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this about Category:anti-Catholicism ?

This category was added. Does this book address anti-Catholicism ? Not interested in your opinion BUT a cite that references someone who says this is so. Ttiotsw 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Describing Tomás Garrido Canabal  ?

I have swapped atheist with anti-clerical for Tomás Garrido Canabal as that is more relevant. He was an atheist BUT that doesn't describe his motivations. According to a related discussion here we can describe Canabal as "An atheist and a puritan, Canabal detested organized religion and alcohol." and the reference is Godman, Peter Graham Greene's Vatican Dossier - Documents from the Archives of the Holy See Reveal the Deliberations among Papal Censors over How to Deal with the Power and the Glory-And Wise Counsel from an Unexpected Source The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 288, July 2001. Atheism isn't relevant here whereas anti-clerical, anti-religious and anti-booze is. Anti-clerical is best fit given attacks on priests. Ttiotsw 08:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole list of adjective describing someone who isn't explicitly named in the book is clearly WP:SYNTH. If the long-winded description goes back then I'm asking that someone to cite someone notable who associates the protagonist in the book with Tomás Garrido Canabal and uses those same words. For us to associate Tomás Garrido Canabal with the so-called "...This Lieutenant - also nameless - is based upon Gov. Tomás Garrido Canabal".... it clearly matches WP:SYNTH. This is nonsense as the book (though years since I read it) and article proper mentions Nameless but we have a name here. Now thats interesting, I wonder who says that the nameless person is in fact Tomás Garrido Canabal and uses all those words to describe him ? Nope, that whole section with Tomás Garrido Canabal in it is on very shaky ground and it certainly is doomed with that sting of adjectives. Ttiotsw 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly; an editor reverted my wording and then added back in "atheist" and then cited it with what looks like three reliable sourced cites but looks like they haven't actually read those !,

1. http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history/jtuck/jtcalles.html NEVER actually uses the word "atheist" and for Canabal e is described as "extreme example of the clerophobe in politics..."
2. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,748144,00.html?promoid=googlep uses the word "atheist" in the context of "affable, spur-clinking atheists, President Abelardo Rodriguez and President-elect Lazaro Cardenas..." so it doesn't actually mention Canabal in this context but he is described as "terror of Catholics..."
3. The third reference is hard to work out the relevance given it's about "teaching of sexual education in elementary schools in Mexico, in reply to an article in Time magazine." It consists of Letter to A. Ayala from Gobernador Tomás Garrido C. concerning La Escuela Nueva en México, and an article in Time magazine and a reply letter Tomás Garrido from A. Ayala, an answer to above letter. To interpret these primary sources in any way is original research.

This is taking a lot of time reverting the POV edits of people trying to get one word in that they feel should belong whilst ignoring the many other words that better describe the person in the context, anti-clerical, "clerophobe", anti-religious et al are very much more descriptive than simply "atheist". Ttiotsw 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Go back are read over the refs, its clear those that new of him new he was an atheist:

1. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,748144,00.html?promoid=googlep

::# CANABAL. Handsome as the Hollywood villain of Mexican cinema, His Excellency Tomas Garrido Canabal has been the terror of Catholics as Governor of the State of Tabasco. "What is God?", Canabal is fond of sneering. "Nobody can tell me, but God has cost Mexico billions! We are going to stop that waste." Most people thought Canabal would pop up in the Cardenas Cabinet as Minister of Education, to scourge the pious with fresh assaults of Godless teaching.

Its becoming clear that you are on a crusade, with religious fervor to show atheists in some kinda saintly light. The article is currently correct in that He was an anti-religious atheist, thus this is what I changed it to. Hardyplants 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

here is one more of many more:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.etcetera.com.mx/2000/395/hcg395.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTomas%2BGarrido%2BCanabal%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3Dj2Q

Garrido Canabal, who transferred to his “red shirts” from Tabasco to the city of Mexico, and began, already like secretary of Agriculture, one crossed anticatholic one by means of the organization of desfanatizadores meetings outside of the churches and the staging of “red Saturdays” in Beautiful Arts with the purpose of propagating the atheism.

Hardyplants 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Must be a slow day here; I have no problems with him being an "atheist", the problem is that this is a minor attribute picked from his other charms. With the references you are providing it is up to us to try and synthesis the wording that you want from the reference. They either do not mention the word "atheist" or certainly do not refer to The Power and the Glory specifically. Thus to pick out a minor attribute of this person when he is in fact an allegorical character in the book is clearly original research. Please also confirm that he was the following,

• an anti-religious Mexican
• an anti-religious heterosexual
• an anti-religious teetotaler
• an anti-religious meat eater
• ......

Do you understand now ? Why is it that only one attribute, barely used except in passing in one of the references is used ? Why is it significant ? Is it that you simply want this word there ? Who notable describes him this way in the context of this story ?

BTW: The Time article quote refers to "with fresh assaults of Godless teaching.". Technically the US and UK state education system is "Godless teaching" i.e. secular in nature. It is quite a leap to extrapolate that to mean that those that deliver that material are atheists. The last cite (Spanish translated) doesn't refer to his atheism but the promotion by..."staging of “red Saturdays” in Beautiful Arts with the purpose of propagating the atheism.". Again (this is getting tiring) we must interpret that to mean he was an atheist because of that promotion of arts.

Again we have no problems that he is an atheist but the particular desire on your part to add those sequence of words into this article that is only marginally related to him (allegorical) using those cites is just plain misuse of references. Ttiotsw 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The book is about a anti-religious atheist that eliminates the catholic church from Mexico and his persecution of a tainted priest.. Its generally know that the book uses Garrido Canabal as its arch-type. In real life Garrido Canabal was an atheist that persuced the church in Mexico. so you are saying that the fact that Canabal is an atheist whom persecuted the church in Mexico, in similar fashion to the character in the book, does not relate to the book. The motivation for both the real person and the character in the book is their atheism. Hardyplants 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

At last full circle and back in context - Canabal was against drink and against the church/clergy etc. The story synopsis mentions the idea of "whiskey priest". To me it is more relevant his views on booze than his views on the philosophical position on the existance of god. How is his atheism even relevant in this story ? My view is that it is not relevant and as you want to add this it is up to you to show why. The relevance of your cites make the well known atheist description of Canabal mismatched to this story. They support his atheism (I have NEVER doubted that) but in this context ? Nope. All of anti-clerical, anti-religious and anti-booze are clearly relevant but explain why "atheist" is relevant. Is "atheist" semantically overloaded to mean one of "anti-clerical, anti-religious or anti-booze" ?, because that is the implication for this article. Ttiotsw 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns related to article

Tabasco and Canabal relation is prohibition not atheism

I have tagged this section NPOV as I feel in the article there is an overemphasis on one aspect of one person who is only allegorically alluded to in the book and yet 4 of the 5 cites are about him. I haven't bought any professional summaries of this yet but the link here, http://www.bookrags.com/shortguide-power-and-the-glory/setting.html (which is by no means scholarly), is an example of what I was saying. In that "In his introduction to the 1962 edition of the book, Greene explains..."...and "Tabasco, a prohibitionist town; Villahermosa, where he developed the character of the priest and discovered the prototype for the lieutenant;...". Now look at what we have;

...persecution was especially severe in the province of Tabasco, where the atheist[1][2][3] governor Tomás Garrido Canabal had founded and actively encouraged paramilitary groups (called the “Red-Shirts”)....

So we have three cites on the atheist bit (which no one questions anyway) and yet the significance of Tabasco seems to be the "prohibitionist" aspects. This is what I thought - Greene took elements of what he saw when he visited the area and melded them into a story whereas we've got chunks of selective reality poked into this article without consideration of what the original author was looking at. It is misrepresenting the subject and providing undue weight to one aspect for POV. Ttiotsw 07:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight with Canabal

I have tagged this section NPOV as it duplicates reference to Canabal. As we have already refered to him in the introduction, it is applying too much weight to this real-life character who is nameless and allegorical in the book. So many other aspects of where Greene visited could be expanded whereas the bias seems to be on just Canabal. That is undue weight too. Ttiotsw 07:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Ttiotsw" after reading this novel for the third time. There is nothing in the novel to suggest that the lieutenant's character has elements appropriate to a governor of a state in Mexico. The lieutenant is a vehicle for a new, but, in Greene's view, an ultimately smaller religion which might displace Christianity in the form of Mexican Catholicism.

It is clear from John Updike's introduction (in a recent edition), that Greene did indeed get to southern Mexico, and that something of what takes place in the novel did in fact take place in Tabasco. Canabal's historical significance is that he spearheaded the persecution of the Catholic Church in Tabasco. And Tabasco's significance is that it provides Greene a reality framework upon which to base his novel. Thanks! petercoll, ~20:15 on 2 December 2007 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercoll (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I'm being bold and making some changes to this article. At the moment it's an absolute mess.

Historical Context

I've changed "plot background" to "historical context" as this is more accurate. Even still, there are no sources that explicitly state that this IS the background that Greene used. It's fairly obvious that it is but sources should be added!138.253.249.67 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also added all information about Canabal to this section. As it was the article was misleading - it implied that Canabal was a character (or that the lieutenant acted as a Governor)138.253.249.67 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Canabal

I appreciate that Catholics and Atheists might want to debate the relative influence of Canabal's atheism upon his anti-clericism but that is NOT within the scope of this article and, furthermore, none of the sources cited (1, 2, 3, or 4) support this (Indeed, only the Time article even mentions the word atheism). If this leads to an edit war then any references to Canabal should simply be removed as he is not explicitly referenced and there are no sources supporting him as being the model Greene used.138.253.249.67 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Atheism v. Anti-Clericism

Nevertheless, the term atheist can be used in reference to the lieutenant (in addition to his anti-clericism) as this is clearly referenced by Greene in the novel. 138.253.249.67 (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Important Characters

Compared to the amount of words and significance given to Canabal in this article, there is no mention at all of the hugely important characters, "The Gringo", "Tench", "Maria", "The Chief of Police", "Coral Fellows", "Captain Fellows", "Mrs Fellows", "The Lehrs", "The Mother", "The Boy" etc. As it is, this article gives a very skewed view of what the novel is about and doesn't even begin to hint at its subtlety or complexity. Indeed, the plot synopsiis here seems to better represent the 1947 film version than Greene's novel.138.253.249.67 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have added in a list of characters with brief descriptions - it's certainly not ideal and would, perhaps, be better as prose with explanations as to the significance of the characters but it's good for a start. 138.253.249.67 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV I think it may be ok to take the NPOV tag away? Does anyone consider the article to be NPOV still or is it ok?138.253.249.67 (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It has now been removed172.188.2.182 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It reads fine. My original NPOV issues seem to have been balanced out.Ttiotsw (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Greens Catholicism and Communism

I was hoping to see in this article some clarification of the influence of Greens Catholicism and his brief membership/ belief in Communism. The Power and the Glory examines the conflict between the two "beliefs" and I'm not sure where the final verdict falls. Is Green trying to have a bet both ways? I't's got me stumped.Perhaps this is beyond the scope of the article to resolve.I believe it's the major theme of the book, but others may have different ideas. Was Green writing as a communist or a Catholic? Thanks for any help towards improving the article.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

His communist sympathies were hardly brief, as they stretched from around the time of 'The Quiet American' to the day that he died, however, he was not a socialist when he wrote this book, he was just a liberal catholic. He does seem to have some socialist views, which is why the Lieutenant is not completely bad but is shown to do good socialist things (much like Garrido himself, who was a Marxist not a Fascist; hence his Red Shirts sang 'La Internationale' and his son was named Lenin). 86.131.246.108 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One belonging to the category we now know as a "liberal Catholic" cannot write a book like this one. What you probably intend to say is that he was a Catholic who sinned (which btw. is true of all Catholics). Also, you do not need to have a socialist view to pay honor to a socialist concerning his sincerity, zeal, or the some good effects of the deeds; you can just as well be a chivalrous enemy of socialism.--2.236.198.248 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)