![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The come and take it flag SVG file cannot be authentic. Helvetica was not yet invented during the Texas revolution. I speculate that these flags were made by hand and had variance in the typography, but a modern sans serif typeface such as this looks very out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.28.219 ( talk) 17:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I love the historical context section. However, there are two different contexts that the revolution are set in: the Mexican centralist/federalist conflict, and the United States expansionist/filibustering context. While it is probably important to mention the former, since the latter was the conventional wisdom among European diplomatic circles, we should try to cover both. - Ben 18:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This article deliberately fails to mention that the issue of slavery was an underlying cause for the Texas Rebellion. While there were indeed other factors that influenced the Texas settlers to rebel against Mexico-such as mandatory conversion to Catholicism-the abolishment of slavery within Mexico, and the attempt by the Mexican government to enforce the "Mexicanization" of the colonist, were all contributing factors in the rebellion. The colonists were far removed from the influence and power of the Mexican government. Therefore, it is highly unreasonable to assume that they raised arms against Mexico because they wanted democracy. For the most part, the colonist ignored the regulations and restrictions imposed upon them by the Mexican government, with the exception of marrying Mexicans in order to gain more land. I would also like to note that the colonist were fully aware that they would have to “Mexicanize” in order to settle in Texas. The colonist they were opportunist looking to make monetary gain from Mexico's political and economic fragmentation and instability. While I'm not advocating the victimization of Santa Anna or the Mexican government, I am advocating that this article contain all the factors that led to the Texas rebellion. Moreover, I've never heard this specific even in history called a "revolution", so I don't think the title is appropriate.
Deliberately is EXACTLY what has been done here in terms of the primary motivation of Texas succession being slavery, I know this because I had to fight an edit war to even get the watered down "compromise of consensus" that currently appears in the article. It is consummate "reverse political correctness", historical revisionism, and convivial civility at the expense of accuracy,lest we offend those who "love the same America" their 3x grandparents tried to succeed from and who to this day form militias to overthrow in the event their cultural sensibilities are someday offended to an intolerable level. As someone once said, the good thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and the BAD thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it". This is why Wikipedia is scoffed at in intellectual venues and excluded as legitimate citation in academia. It is perpetually diluted to the lowest intellectual common denominator, and this is a CLASSIC example Cosand ( talk) 14:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is "Texian" used in some places, but not others? Articles should strive for consistency. This article is just plain confusing. Fuzzform 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it better be changed in "Texian victories"?
I did so in my (unfinished) Italian translation.
-- Filippof ( talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I more or less answered my own question here.
Texan is the modern
demonym, while
Texian (it is actually a word. What do you know!) is an archaic form used by residents in the area of Texas before and during independence, but prior to admittance to the US (basically). now, according to my reading of
WP:NAME using "Texan" is indicated, since the current common usage is preferred where archaic spellings are not required. The main issue here though is consistency and understandability. If the consensus is to use "Texian", then the word itself should be linked to the page about it, and some short explanation should be given in this article. I don't think that using an archaic term aids in understanding this article in any manner, personally, so my "vote" is to use the modern terminology.
—
Ω (
talk)
13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, can we simply come to a consensus? There is a minor edit war taking place over that issue. Shoot, John Wayne sometimes called them, "Texicans!" I think Texian will be continually edited by passing contributors assuming it to be a typo unless we simply stay with the more familiar "Texan."-- cregil (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
In at least seven separate articles within the scope of Texas History, some contributions using the word “Texan” or “Texans” have been changed by editors to “Texian” or “Texians.”
The result of this has been that “Texian” appears to be the preferred term to the exclusion (for consistency's sake) of the word “Texan” in some (but not all) related articles. Is the exclusive use of either term merited or desirable?
-- cregil (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
-- cregil (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The present statement, "The Mexican-born settlers in Tejas were soon vastly outnumbered by people born in the United States. To address this situation, President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. " seems to beg the discussion that Mexico was ruled, not by indigenous Mexican people, but by persons of European descent; and thus it was a European bias brought to the hemisphere playing out, with the indigenous people choosing sides, but not leading.
These things need to be discussed and considered as regards mention of the slavery of blacks as regards the Revolution. --cregil 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles ( talk • contribs)
Slavery Issue edits:
ITEM 1:
The heading was changed from “Economic Origin of Conflict” to “Slavery the primary issue”
The original heading and wording of the “Economic Origin of Conflict” has been restored— no discussion took place concerning that section or its title. As for the additions regarding the slavery issue; those have been moved to a new section by the title chosen by the contributor making the most recent changes. The entire new section is flagged with editorializing, and request for a 3rd party has been made.
ITEM 2:
Same contributor added to opening of the renamed section, “The primary grievance,especially among wealth and affluent Texans was that Mexico had prohibited slavery. While most American immigrants did not own slaves, they were decidedly a majority pro slavocracy.”
ITEM 3:
RE: “This issue was clearly embedded in virtully all "economic" and "property" grievances. “
ITEM 4:
RE: "Mexico took repeated steps to abolish slavery in Texas. Each step prompted a vociferous reaction from Anglos. "
ITEM 5:
The Current citations provided:
I note that the blog, (after destiny) mentions Gerald Horne's claim that slavery was “A primary issue” but no support for Horne’s statement is provided, so we have an opinion on hearsay which, even so, still does not claim slavery to be THE primary issue as the contributor has stated.
The reference "librarything" is a library page for Horne’s book, but the book itself has not been cited, no quotations or pages have been mentioned. I do note that Gerald Horne is not a scholar of Texas History, but is a scholar of Black History. It would be expected that the book mentioned, if read apart from the greater subject of the Texas Revolution, could easily be misinterpreted as the single proper perspective. That I can see how the error would be easy to make is not the same as claiming that there is no misconception being made. It is a very understandable Point of View Violation.
The next citation (tcu personal pages) is a collection of private book-report reviews of a book in which one reviewer (the very first one) states that the book’s author (Campbell) does NOT claim slavery as "a primary issue," but does claim it to be an underlying one. That then, the contributor’s own source, provided a mark by which the primacy of the slavery issue might be expected to take within an encyclopedic article: That it needs mention, but in proper context, allowing other perspectives and as an underlying rather than primary issue-- and certainly not one which usurps the meaning of “economic:” and “property” unto itself.
ITEM 6:
RE: “Given the amount of capital many Anglos had invested in black slaves,”
RE: “Mexico's actions with respect to slavery became the prime issue. “
RE: “There were those…”
RE: “…by 1836 who felt an independent Republic of Texas in which slavery was firmly and for all time recognized and respected was preferable to Mexico with an uncertain future for slavery.”
RE: “Two and one half decades later Texans still felt…”
RE: “… so strongly about black slavery and attached to it for both economic and social reasons that they would secede from the United States and wage a civil war rather than see the institution imperiled.
To assign motives to persons without evidence of what instigated action on the part of the persons involved in the events is somewhere between hearsay and out-right fiction. If it is correct, it an over-simplified form of hearsay (as motives tend to be quite complex), and if it is incorrect it is a bias fiction. Either way, it has no place in history.
-- cregil (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
So far unable to validate, but several references found stating just under 25% of the Anglo settlers owned slaves. 1829 to 1836 range: Anglo Population 30-36,000; Native Mexicam pop ~ 3-5,000; Slave pop ~ 5,000.
(1) In a Fourth of July address intended to stir the colonists to resistance R. M. Williamson, a prominent radical, declared that the Mexicans were coming to Texas to compel the Texans, among other things, to give up their slaves (a broadside in the Bexar archives; "Publications" of So. Hist. Assn. VIII, 7-18). (2) In a letter of August 21,1835, Stephen F. Austin said "Texas must be a slave country. It is no longer a matter of doubt" (Quarterly of Tex.State Hist. Assn, XIII, 271). (3) On August 28 the radicals issued a circular in which they quoted H. A. Alsberry, who had recently returned from Mexico, as saying that the Mexicans boasted that they would free the slaves of the Texans and set them against their masters (Broadside in the Austin Papers)."
--Bookstore didn't have Horne's book and state archives closed today. I'll see if I can get there this week and find origination and verification of the above. But I must say, it really chaps my hide that someone who does not do this kind of work feels free to editorialize on the article-- and then be nasty about it. God spare us from temper tantrums of adults! --
cregil
(talk)
18:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Seldom if ever have I or anyone else seen such a frantic and desperate attempt to nit-pic and babbles ones way to try to refute something which in no educated venue is even disputed. You have issues. The Texas revolution was rooted in a desire to maintain a slavocracy,embrace that which is real
Cosand (
talk)
00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You anti intellect, desire to revise history, and pathetic euro centric oppression complex is duly noted, by anyone with an education, thanks Cosand ( talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Let us preserve consensus which uses the "FAQ template" on the talk page.
Suggested for that FAQ:
We will want to link to the archive discussing these matters.
I see no other matters with ongoing relevance to the development of the article.
NOTE: The issues discussed on the Talk Page have bled into the article in a subtle way-- that is, that the article has too much to do with "dancing around" issues and too little on the actual revolution which was first and foremost a war -- and should be treated as such.
-- cregil (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Immediately following the current "Santa Anna Defeated" section, I intend to add a section "Mexican Retreat and Withdrawal." With thousands of Mexican Troops in-country, the war was not necessarily over from the perspective of either side.
Dimmick's Sea of Mud and Castaneda's translation of primary documents found in The Mexican Side of the Revolution will be my primary sources, a touch of Smithwick's A Revolution Remembered and (if I recall) some help from Roberts and Olson's A Line in the Sand.
I would appreciate other sources if anyone has suggestions.
Some highlights intended:
What else? -- cregil (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
At present, the Info-Box has about two dozen names in the Commanders and Leader section, and might be getting a bit unwieldy. Some thoughts:
There is a lot of political lead-up the Texas Revolution, but, conceptually, the Revolution itself is reasonably contained to the 1835 opposition of Santa Anna's Centralist forces gathered to march northward to put down Federalist rebellions.
A new article section, "Battles" with dates, leaders, forces, and one sentence summary with link to the main article. Hostilities (including a non-Anglo-centric perspective) are as follows:
Going over my files on troop movements, I believe that is the complete list of ground engagements, (Naval engagements will need to be added) although there appears to have been minor skirmishes between opposing scouting/ranging units (Prisoner's taken by both sides-- Jenkins Papers of the Texas Revolution) off and on during the Runaway Scrape and also following the Battle of San Jacinto (a ranger/scout killed on April 27-- Audited Claims of the Republic of Texas).
If we use that list, we can then name the commanders, there, and leave the Info Box list to a much more manageable list of political leaders and military leaders as follows:
If we limit by President and Generals, The Texas list is incomplete. If we limit to Colonels, the list becomes very large. The list above seems a fitting compromise as it mentions the leaders of the most important strategic operations from each side. I think that is in keeping with other Info Box listings and the general interest expected from an encyclopedia reader.
What I think we wish to avoid, with discipline, are the listings which are virtually limited to interests of genealogists, but not to a general reader. Moore's excellent work in that regard in his Eighteen Minutes ought to be found in one place on the Internet-- but it isn't; however, Wikipedia will never be that place.
Editor and contributors-- Have I got this close?-- cregil (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This is by all definitions an Insurgence not a "revolution" yet the title does not reflect this.
But the sidebar shows a link to the "Mexican Invasions of Texas" when all Mexico was doing was trying to reestablish control of its lands that were taken illegally by the Insurgent Texas forces.
If what Texas did to Mexico back then happened today, not only would the USA be over there in a split-second playing "World Police" and killing the Insurgents (Texans), but they would be the "heroes" for doing so. Yet, a USA-centric view of past events portrays the Insurgents (Texans) as the heroes/victims and the wronged/invaded Nation (Mexico) as the aggressor. Preposterous.
InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes ( talk) 04:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The term "invasion" is not my term, it is on the main page sidebar on the right (3rd bullet under "Result"), why don't you take a look.
Also, note that you agreed with my only point, which was that "insurgency" accurately describes the initial actions of the aggressive party (Texans). InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes ( talk) 22:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, this is not a proposal to change the name of the article but rather just pointing out the inaccuracy of the article's title.
But to your points: 1) The "Texas Revolution" is not what this historical event is globally known as. This event is known as the "War with Texas" by Mexican historians and many historians from countries other than the USA. 2) The use of the term "Revolution" is evidence of a Texas POV. As is the sidebar link that I have already pointed out that refers to the "Battle of Salado Creek" as "Mexican Invasions of Texas" (which, by the way, is the only link under the "Results" subhead in that sidebar that isn't named for the article that it redirects to).
As I said earlier, I'm not proposing that the name of the article be changed (although it should be if a truly unbiased, world, and "encyclopedic" account is the objective of the website), but at the very least that biased POV sidebar link should be changed. If you guardians of all things sacred and all things Wiki are so concerned with POV, then why don't you fix the biased POV language that is actually in the article and that is reflecting a Texas POV?
Lastly, I'm not arguing whether this event was an insurgency or not because the facts clearly show that, by definition, it was. Any use of red herrings or attempts to shift the burden of proof won't change that. Point made.
InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes ( talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the addition to the info box of the "Mexican-American wars / 1826-1920" placed there by user $1LENCE D00600D, as the United States was not a participant in the conflict.
The stated intention of that user to reinstate the template will therefore bring the discussion here. -- cregil (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So what is there to discuss?
I only added the "Mexico-United States Relations" link because I thought that it would be the best substitute (as you said above, there is no Mexican-American wars article, yet). If there is a problem than please just remove the link.
"The Mexico-United States Relations article does not claim that the Texas Revolution was an American conflict."
As I stated before, the US was not involved in the Texas Revolution officially (and I did not try and imply that by using the "US-Mexico relations" article link). However, the US gov. supported the revolution and most of the rebels were Americans or Texans of American descent. The "Mexico-United States Relations" article doesn't say that the revolution was an American conflict (obviously because nobody has added that information yet) but it was (nobody can rationally deny it).
Whether or not the words "puppet gov" and "rebels" are "unnecessarily provocative" is irrelevant to the discussion. (I can understand the "puppet gov" part as being provacative, but the rebels were in fact rebels. I fail to see what the use of those specific words has to do with why or why not this template should be added.) I was in a hurry doing something else when you sent me the first message so "puppet gov" was the first thing that came to mind (Ive never been good at explaining things). Pretty much everybody who knows anything about the story of the Texas Revolution knows that it begins in the US (not the actual fighting of course, but the political events) and the revolution has often been viewed as a proxy war between the US and Mexico for contol of Texas. Also, Sam Houston, one of the leaders of the Texas (as I'm sure you know), is said to have been sent to Texas by the US gov with specific orders to start a revolution, which would (and did) lead to annexation.
"The US was not in the war but Americans were" becomes a racial identifier, rather than the accepted political identifier; thus, a POV violation."
The word "Mexican" is used in exactly the same way as "American" so whats the difference? Technically, according to the above statement, "Mexican" cannot be considered an accepted political identifier either because the county is official called the United Mexican States. Are we going to rename the Mexican-American War article, the Spanish-American War article, the Philippines-American War article simply because the word "American" is in there instead of "United States?" Nope, so why the double standard? "Mexican-American wars" is not something I just made up, it is a pretty common name/phrase (whatever). You should google it to see what I mean. Also, you say that using "American" is a POV violation. I'm guessing "POV" stands for "Point of View" (maybe I'm wrong), but if thats the case, the fact that Americans fought in the Texas Revolution is not my point of view, its fact.
Thank you-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"The US was not in the war but Americans were" becomes a racial identifier, rather than the accepted political identifier; thus, a POV violation."
Not only did the paragraph contain no citation, to claim that the US was a haven for religious freedom at a time when a virtual open season had been declared on Mormons and Catholics were regarded at pagans, is preposterous. I removed the entire paragraph. In the interest of accuracy vs reverse political correctness, I again changed a heading to reflect slavery as the primary factor in the conflict. Cosand ( talk) 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Tom, I agree that much of the Talk Page needs to be archived-- and suggested that some time ago. But before it is, the many discussion on slavery need to remain present as an RfC seems imminent.
As for the quote from me... please see below-- cregil (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Priorities: This is an article about a series of political and armed conflicts which took place in 1835 and 1836 in a Mexican state by Mexican citizens against the Centralist government of Santa Anna.
Method: We need to be careful with Original Research by means of Wikipedia:SYN as "novel interpretations of primary sources" which might produce a POV violation.
Background
My original, point-by-point, objection is above.
The problem is most easily addressed by the problem of sources:
For those reasons, the edits in question had been reverted-- twice.
Tom Reedy,of all things "unencyclopedic", hair splitting on the semantics of sources and appeasing those with personal bias may be two of the most unencyclopedic of all. Claims that the US was a haven of religious freedom in the 1830s is categorically absurd, and the idea that this, along with even more preposterous claims that Anglo settlers in Texas were concerned about the details and nuances of Mexican politics is frankly, laughable. What is going on here is what I like to call "reverse political correctness", in that there are those who will do cartwheels in order to minimize any unfortunate conduct by Caucasians in American history, including revise history, hobble context and make giant leaps of logic and intellect. The prohibition of slavery was not a secondary issue, it was THE issue, as seen in my citations. I see no need to edit or revise history to spare the feelings of those who have romantic and naive notions, at the expense of intellectual continuity and historical academic accuracy. That serves no valid purpose. I agree the page also painfully incomplete, but I fancy my function as a "casual" editor as one who corrects glaring errors. I have neither the time nor inclination to re-write entire pages. The truth is I loth Wikipedia. Reference and Media dissemination of information by the consensus of layman non academics is a blueprint for mass ignorance. However, since Wikipedia is the top of page link for virtually any search, I in my own tiny way try to make a ding in the sea of misinformation found on Wikipedia. That is what I have done here. Cosand ( talk) 02:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have yet again removed the NON CITED absurd claim that the US was a haven for religious freedom in the 1930s(It was quite to the contrary) and thus was a motivation for the Texas revolution. The claim in unsupported by fact, citation, or historical context.I also put back the universally accepted and historically accurate content that the primary motivation of the revolution was Mexico's prohibition of slavery, complete with legitimate citations. I also move some of the text from "backgound" to "other issues" so the page could be in line with accepted editorial structured standards. Cregil, please stop vandalizing and attempting to dumb down the page with your personal bias and uncited revisionist history. The information I entered is both cited and universally accepted throughout academia and is a global historical consensus. Regional bias,rose colored hindsight and clinging to romantic legend depicted in 1960s Walt Disney movies and 1950s Fess Parker and Scott Forbes TV shows has no place in an intelligent discussion of history. Davey Crockett was not the "king of the wild frontier", what he WAS was a slave owning genocidal murderer who once burned a group of native Americans alive because they refused to surrender, and then ate food that was cooked in their melted body fat. Not a romantic tale of a longing for freedom, just reality. For everyone's sake, please separate emotion and romantic notions from fact in your future edits Cosand ( talk) 03:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This article states that the empresarial grant was issued to Stephen F. Austin:
"The first group of colonists, known as the Old Three Hundred, had arrived in 1822 to settle an empresarial grant that had been given to Stephen F. Austin."
However the article on Stephen F. Austin correctly states that the grant was given to his father, Moses Austin:
"During Austin's time in Arkansas, his father traveled to Spanish Texas and received an empresarial grant that would allow him to bring 300 American families to Texas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanlav ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Per this discussion at the MilHist Wikiproject, we're trying to get interest in bringing this article to FA status and main page prominence by May 25, 2015 (Memorial Day). This will coincide with the airing of History Channel documentary on the events of the Texas Revolution after the Battle of the Alamo. Even if we can't get the article to FA status and on the main page, any improvements we can make to it will assist those who come looking for more information on the topic.
This is a call for volunteers! I think we need 1-2 to do research, 1 to write up the research that has already been done (first half of the war), and 1 one to write up the new stuff. Plus a copyeditor and someone to track down images. Karanacs ( talk) 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, there is already a Wikipedia page on this. Texas Rising. — Maile ( talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The come and take it flag SVG file cannot be authentic. Helvetica was not yet invented during the Texas revolution. I speculate that these flags were made by hand and had variance in the typography, but a modern sans serif typeface such as this looks very out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.28.219 ( talk) 17:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I love the historical context section. However, there are two different contexts that the revolution are set in: the Mexican centralist/federalist conflict, and the United States expansionist/filibustering context. While it is probably important to mention the former, since the latter was the conventional wisdom among European diplomatic circles, we should try to cover both. - Ben 18:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This article deliberately fails to mention that the issue of slavery was an underlying cause for the Texas Rebellion. While there were indeed other factors that influenced the Texas settlers to rebel against Mexico-such as mandatory conversion to Catholicism-the abolishment of slavery within Mexico, and the attempt by the Mexican government to enforce the "Mexicanization" of the colonist, were all contributing factors in the rebellion. The colonists were far removed from the influence and power of the Mexican government. Therefore, it is highly unreasonable to assume that they raised arms against Mexico because they wanted democracy. For the most part, the colonist ignored the regulations and restrictions imposed upon them by the Mexican government, with the exception of marrying Mexicans in order to gain more land. I would also like to note that the colonist were fully aware that they would have to “Mexicanize” in order to settle in Texas. The colonist they were opportunist looking to make monetary gain from Mexico's political and economic fragmentation and instability. While I'm not advocating the victimization of Santa Anna or the Mexican government, I am advocating that this article contain all the factors that led to the Texas rebellion. Moreover, I've never heard this specific even in history called a "revolution", so I don't think the title is appropriate.
Deliberately is EXACTLY what has been done here in terms of the primary motivation of Texas succession being slavery, I know this because I had to fight an edit war to even get the watered down "compromise of consensus" that currently appears in the article. It is consummate "reverse political correctness", historical revisionism, and convivial civility at the expense of accuracy,lest we offend those who "love the same America" their 3x grandparents tried to succeed from and who to this day form militias to overthrow in the event their cultural sensibilities are someday offended to an intolerable level. As someone once said, the good thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and the BAD thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it". This is why Wikipedia is scoffed at in intellectual venues and excluded as legitimate citation in academia. It is perpetually diluted to the lowest intellectual common denominator, and this is a CLASSIC example Cosand ( talk) 14:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is "Texian" used in some places, but not others? Articles should strive for consistency. This article is just plain confusing. Fuzzform 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it better be changed in "Texian victories"?
I did so in my (unfinished) Italian translation.
-- Filippof ( talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I more or less answered my own question here.
Texan is the modern
demonym, while
Texian (it is actually a word. What do you know!) is an archaic form used by residents in the area of Texas before and during independence, but prior to admittance to the US (basically). now, according to my reading of
WP:NAME using "Texan" is indicated, since the current common usage is preferred where archaic spellings are not required. The main issue here though is consistency and understandability. If the consensus is to use "Texian", then the word itself should be linked to the page about it, and some short explanation should be given in this article. I don't think that using an archaic term aids in understanding this article in any manner, personally, so my "vote" is to use the modern terminology.
—
Ω (
talk)
13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, can we simply come to a consensus? There is a minor edit war taking place over that issue. Shoot, John Wayne sometimes called them, "Texicans!" I think Texian will be continually edited by passing contributors assuming it to be a typo unless we simply stay with the more familiar "Texan."-- cregil (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
In at least seven separate articles within the scope of Texas History, some contributions using the word “Texan” or “Texans” have been changed by editors to “Texian” or “Texians.”
The result of this has been that “Texian” appears to be the preferred term to the exclusion (for consistency's sake) of the word “Texan” in some (but not all) related articles. Is the exclusive use of either term merited or desirable?
-- cregil (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
-- cregil (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The present statement, "The Mexican-born settlers in Tejas were soon vastly outnumbered by people born in the United States. To address this situation, President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. " seems to beg the discussion that Mexico was ruled, not by indigenous Mexican people, but by persons of European descent; and thus it was a European bias brought to the hemisphere playing out, with the indigenous people choosing sides, but not leading.
These things need to be discussed and considered as regards mention of the slavery of blacks as regards the Revolution. --cregil 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles ( talk • contribs)
Slavery Issue edits:
ITEM 1:
The heading was changed from “Economic Origin of Conflict” to “Slavery the primary issue”
The original heading and wording of the “Economic Origin of Conflict” has been restored— no discussion took place concerning that section or its title. As for the additions regarding the slavery issue; those have been moved to a new section by the title chosen by the contributor making the most recent changes. The entire new section is flagged with editorializing, and request for a 3rd party has been made.
ITEM 2:
Same contributor added to opening of the renamed section, “The primary grievance,especially among wealth and affluent Texans was that Mexico had prohibited slavery. While most American immigrants did not own slaves, they were decidedly a majority pro slavocracy.”
ITEM 3:
RE: “This issue was clearly embedded in virtully all "economic" and "property" grievances. “
ITEM 4:
RE: "Mexico took repeated steps to abolish slavery in Texas. Each step prompted a vociferous reaction from Anglos. "
ITEM 5:
The Current citations provided:
I note that the blog, (after destiny) mentions Gerald Horne's claim that slavery was “A primary issue” but no support for Horne’s statement is provided, so we have an opinion on hearsay which, even so, still does not claim slavery to be THE primary issue as the contributor has stated.
The reference "librarything" is a library page for Horne’s book, but the book itself has not been cited, no quotations or pages have been mentioned. I do note that Gerald Horne is not a scholar of Texas History, but is a scholar of Black History. It would be expected that the book mentioned, if read apart from the greater subject of the Texas Revolution, could easily be misinterpreted as the single proper perspective. That I can see how the error would be easy to make is not the same as claiming that there is no misconception being made. It is a very understandable Point of View Violation.
The next citation (tcu personal pages) is a collection of private book-report reviews of a book in which one reviewer (the very first one) states that the book’s author (Campbell) does NOT claim slavery as "a primary issue," but does claim it to be an underlying one. That then, the contributor’s own source, provided a mark by which the primacy of the slavery issue might be expected to take within an encyclopedic article: That it needs mention, but in proper context, allowing other perspectives and as an underlying rather than primary issue-- and certainly not one which usurps the meaning of “economic:” and “property” unto itself.
ITEM 6:
RE: “Given the amount of capital many Anglos had invested in black slaves,”
RE: “Mexico's actions with respect to slavery became the prime issue. “
RE: “There were those…”
RE: “…by 1836 who felt an independent Republic of Texas in which slavery was firmly and for all time recognized and respected was preferable to Mexico with an uncertain future for slavery.”
RE: “Two and one half decades later Texans still felt…”
RE: “… so strongly about black slavery and attached to it for both economic and social reasons that they would secede from the United States and wage a civil war rather than see the institution imperiled.
To assign motives to persons without evidence of what instigated action on the part of the persons involved in the events is somewhere between hearsay and out-right fiction. If it is correct, it an over-simplified form of hearsay (as motives tend to be quite complex), and if it is incorrect it is a bias fiction. Either way, it has no place in history.
-- cregil (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
So far unable to validate, but several references found stating just under 25% of the Anglo settlers owned slaves. 1829 to 1836 range: Anglo Population 30-36,000; Native Mexicam pop ~ 3-5,000; Slave pop ~ 5,000.
(1) In a Fourth of July address intended to stir the colonists to resistance R. M. Williamson, a prominent radical, declared that the Mexicans were coming to Texas to compel the Texans, among other things, to give up their slaves (a broadside in the Bexar archives; "Publications" of So. Hist. Assn. VIII, 7-18). (2) In a letter of August 21,1835, Stephen F. Austin said "Texas must be a slave country. It is no longer a matter of doubt" (Quarterly of Tex.State Hist. Assn, XIII, 271). (3) On August 28 the radicals issued a circular in which they quoted H. A. Alsberry, who had recently returned from Mexico, as saying that the Mexicans boasted that they would free the slaves of the Texans and set them against their masters (Broadside in the Austin Papers)."
--Bookstore didn't have Horne's book and state archives closed today. I'll see if I can get there this week and find origination and verification of the above. But I must say, it really chaps my hide that someone who does not do this kind of work feels free to editorialize on the article-- and then be nasty about it. God spare us from temper tantrums of adults! --
cregil
(talk)
18:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Seldom if ever have I or anyone else seen such a frantic and desperate attempt to nit-pic and babbles ones way to try to refute something which in no educated venue is even disputed. You have issues. The Texas revolution was rooted in a desire to maintain a slavocracy,embrace that which is real
Cosand (
talk)
00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You anti intellect, desire to revise history, and pathetic euro centric oppression complex is duly noted, by anyone with an education, thanks Cosand ( talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Let us preserve consensus which uses the "FAQ template" on the talk page.
Suggested for that FAQ:
We will want to link to the archive discussing these matters.
I see no other matters with ongoing relevance to the development of the article.
NOTE: The issues discussed on the Talk Page have bled into the article in a subtle way-- that is, that the article has too much to do with "dancing around" issues and too little on the actual revolution which was first and foremost a war -- and should be treated as such.
-- cregil (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Immediately following the current "Santa Anna Defeated" section, I intend to add a section "Mexican Retreat and Withdrawal." With thousands of Mexican Troops in-country, the war was not necessarily over from the perspective of either side.
Dimmick's Sea of Mud and Castaneda's translation of primary documents found in The Mexican Side of the Revolution will be my primary sources, a touch of Smithwick's A Revolution Remembered and (if I recall) some help from Roberts and Olson's A Line in the Sand.
I would appreciate other sources if anyone has suggestions.
Some highlights intended:
What else? -- cregil (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
At present, the Info-Box has about two dozen names in the Commanders and Leader section, and might be getting a bit unwieldy. Some thoughts:
There is a lot of political lead-up the Texas Revolution, but, conceptually, the Revolution itself is reasonably contained to the 1835 opposition of Santa Anna's Centralist forces gathered to march northward to put down Federalist rebellions.
A new article section, "Battles" with dates, leaders, forces, and one sentence summary with link to the main article. Hostilities (including a non-Anglo-centric perspective) are as follows:
Going over my files on troop movements, I believe that is the complete list of ground engagements, (Naval engagements will need to be added) although there appears to have been minor skirmishes between opposing scouting/ranging units (Prisoner's taken by both sides-- Jenkins Papers of the Texas Revolution) off and on during the Runaway Scrape and also following the Battle of San Jacinto (a ranger/scout killed on April 27-- Audited Claims of the Republic of Texas).
If we use that list, we can then name the commanders, there, and leave the Info Box list to a much more manageable list of political leaders and military leaders as follows:
If we limit by President and Generals, The Texas list is incomplete. If we limit to Colonels, the list becomes very large. The list above seems a fitting compromise as it mentions the leaders of the most important strategic operations from each side. I think that is in keeping with other Info Box listings and the general interest expected from an encyclopedia reader.
What I think we wish to avoid, with discipline, are the listings which are virtually limited to interests of genealogists, but not to a general reader. Moore's excellent work in that regard in his Eighteen Minutes ought to be found in one place on the Internet-- but it isn't; however, Wikipedia will never be that place.
Editor and contributors-- Have I got this close?-- cregil (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This is by all definitions an Insurgence not a "revolution" yet the title does not reflect this.
But the sidebar shows a link to the "Mexican Invasions of Texas" when all Mexico was doing was trying to reestablish control of its lands that were taken illegally by the Insurgent Texas forces.
If what Texas did to Mexico back then happened today, not only would the USA be over there in a split-second playing "World Police" and killing the Insurgents (Texans), but they would be the "heroes" for doing so. Yet, a USA-centric view of past events portrays the Insurgents (Texans) as the heroes/victims and the wronged/invaded Nation (Mexico) as the aggressor. Preposterous.
InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes ( talk) 04:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The term "invasion" is not my term, it is on the main page sidebar on the right (3rd bullet under "Result"), why don't you take a look.
Also, note that you agreed with my only point, which was that "insurgency" accurately describes the initial actions of the aggressive party (Texans). InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes ( talk) 22:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, this is not a proposal to change the name of the article but rather just pointing out the inaccuracy of the article's title.
But to your points: 1) The "Texas Revolution" is not what this historical event is globally known as. This event is known as the "War with Texas" by Mexican historians and many historians from countries other than the USA. 2) The use of the term "Revolution" is evidence of a Texas POV. As is the sidebar link that I have already pointed out that refers to the "Battle of Salado Creek" as "Mexican Invasions of Texas" (which, by the way, is the only link under the "Results" subhead in that sidebar that isn't named for the article that it redirects to).
As I said earlier, I'm not proposing that the name of the article be changed (although it should be if a truly unbiased, world, and "encyclopedic" account is the objective of the website), but at the very least that biased POV sidebar link should be changed. If you guardians of all things sacred and all things Wiki are so concerned with POV, then why don't you fix the biased POV language that is actually in the article and that is reflecting a Texas POV?
Lastly, I'm not arguing whether this event was an insurgency or not because the facts clearly show that, by definition, it was. Any use of red herrings or attempts to shift the burden of proof won't change that. Point made.
InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes ( talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the addition to the info box of the "Mexican-American wars / 1826-1920" placed there by user $1LENCE D00600D, as the United States was not a participant in the conflict.
The stated intention of that user to reinstate the template will therefore bring the discussion here. -- cregil (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So what is there to discuss?
I only added the "Mexico-United States Relations" link because I thought that it would be the best substitute (as you said above, there is no Mexican-American wars article, yet). If there is a problem than please just remove the link.
"The Mexico-United States Relations article does not claim that the Texas Revolution was an American conflict."
As I stated before, the US was not involved in the Texas Revolution officially (and I did not try and imply that by using the "US-Mexico relations" article link). However, the US gov. supported the revolution and most of the rebels were Americans or Texans of American descent. The "Mexico-United States Relations" article doesn't say that the revolution was an American conflict (obviously because nobody has added that information yet) but it was (nobody can rationally deny it).
Whether or not the words "puppet gov" and "rebels" are "unnecessarily provocative" is irrelevant to the discussion. (I can understand the "puppet gov" part as being provacative, but the rebels were in fact rebels. I fail to see what the use of those specific words has to do with why or why not this template should be added.) I was in a hurry doing something else when you sent me the first message so "puppet gov" was the first thing that came to mind (Ive never been good at explaining things). Pretty much everybody who knows anything about the story of the Texas Revolution knows that it begins in the US (not the actual fighting of course, but the political events) and the revolution has often been viewed as a proxy war between the US and Mexico for contol of Texas. Also, Sam Houston, one of the leaders of the Texas (as I'm sure you know), is said to have been sent to Texas by the US gov with specific orders to start a revolution, which would (and did) lead to annexation.
"The US was not in the war but Americans were" becomes a racial identifier, rather than the accepted political identifier; thus, a POV violation."
The word "Mexican" is used in exactly the same way as "American" so whats the difference? Technically, according to the above statement, "Mexican" cannot be considered an accepted political identifier either because the county is official called the United Mexican States. Are we going to rename the Mexican-American War article, the Spanish-American War article, the Philippines-American War article simply because the word "American" is in there instead of "United States?" Nope, so why the double standard? "Mexican-American wars" is not something I just made up, it is a pretty common name/phrase (whatever). You should google it to see what I mean. Also, you say that using "American" is a POV violation. I'm guessing "POV" stands for "Point of View" (maybe I'm wrong), but if thats the case, the fact that Americans fought in the Texas Revolution is not my point of view, its fact.
Thank you-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"The US was not in the war but Americans were" becomes a racial identifier, rather than the accepted political identifier; thus, a POV violation."
Not only did the paragraph contain no citation, to claim that the US was a haven for religious freedom at a time when a virtual open season had been declared on Mormons and Catholics were regarded at pagans, is preposterous. I removed the entire paragraph. In the interest of accuracy vs reverse political correctness, I again changed a heading to reflect slavery as the primary factor in the conflict. Cosand ( talk) 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Tom, I agree that much of the Talk Page needs to be archived-- and suggested that some time ago. But before it is, the many discussion on slavery need to remain present as an RfC seems imminent.
As for the quote from me... please see below-- cregil (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Priorities: This is an article about a series of political and armed conflicts which took place in 1835 and 1836 in a Mexican state by Mexican citizens against the Centralist government of Santa Anna.
Method: We need to be careful with Original Research by means of Wikipedia:SYN as "novel interpretations of primary sources" which might produce a POV violation.
Background
My original, point-by-point, objection is above.
The problem is most easily addressed by the problem of sources:
For those reasons, the edits in question had been reverted-- twice.
Tom Reedy,of all things "unencyclopedic", hair splitting on the semantics of sources and appeasing those with personal bias may be two of the most unencyclopedic of all. Claims that the US was a haven of religious freedom in the 1830s is categorically absurd, and the idea that this, along with even more preposterous claims that Anglo settlers in Texas were concerned about the details and nuances of Mexican politics is frankly, laughable. What is going on here is what I like to call "reverse political correctness", in that there are those who will do cartwheels in order to minimize any unfortunate conduct by Caucasians in American history, including revise history, hobble context and make giant leaps of logic and intellect. The prohibition of slavery was not a secondary issue, it was THE issue, as seen in my citations. I see no need to edit or revise history to spare the feelings of those who have romantic and naive notions, at the expense of intellectual continuity and historical academic accuracy. That serves no valid purpose. I agree the page also painfully incomplete, but I fancy my function as a "casual" editor as one who corrects glaring errors. I have neither the time nor inclination to re-write entire pages. The truth is I loth Wikipedia. Reference and Media dissemination of information by the consensus of layman non academics is a blueprint for mass ignorance. However, since Wikipedia is the top of page link for virtually any search, I in my own tiny way try to make a ding in the sea of misinformation found on Wikipedia. That is what I have done here. Cosand ( talk) 02:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have yet again removed the NON CITED absurd claim that the US was a haven for religious freedom in the 1930s(It was quite to the contrary) and thus was a motivation for the Texas revolution. The claim in unsupported by fact, citation, or historical context.I also put back the universally accepted and historically accurate content that the primary motivation of the revolution was Mexico's prohibition of slavery, complete with legitimate citations. I also move some of the text from "backgound" to "other issues" so the page could be in line with accepted editorial structured standards. Cregil, please stop vandalizing and attempting to dumb down the page with your personal bias and uncited revisionist history. The information I entered is both cited and universally accepted throughout academia and is a global historical consensus. Regional bias,rose colored hindsight and clinging to romantic legend depicted in 1960s Walt Disney movies and 1950s Fess Parker and Scott Forbes TV shows has no place in an intelligent discussion of history. Davey Crockett was not the "king of the wild frontier", what he WAS was a slave owning genocidal murderer who once burned a group of native Americans alive because they refused to surrender, and then ate food that was cooked in their melted body fat. Not a romantic tale of a longing for freedom, just reality. For everyone's sake, please separate emotion and romantic notions from fact in your future edits Cosand ( talk) 03:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This article states that the empresarial grant was issued to Stephen F. Austin:
"The first group of colonists, known as the Old Three Hundred, had arrived in 1822 to settle an empresarial grant that had been given to Stephen F. Austin."
However the article on Stephen F. Austin correctly states that the grant was given to his father, Moses Austin:
"During Austin's time in Arkansas, his father traveled to Spanish Texas and received an empresarial grant that would allow him to bring 300 American families to Texas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanlav ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Per this discussion at the MilHist Wikiproject, we're trying to get interest in bringing this article to FA status and main page prominence by May 25, 2015 (Memorial Day). This will coincide with the airing of History Channel documentary on the events of the Texas Revolution after the Battle of the Alamo. Even if we can't get the article to FA status and on the main page, any improvements we can make to it will assist those who come looking for more information on the topic.
This is a call for volunteers! I think we need 1-2 to do research, 1 to write up the research that has already been done (first half of the war), and 1 one to write up the new stuff. Plus a copyeditor and someone to track down images. Karanacs ( talk) 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, there is already a Wikipedia page on this. Texas Rising. — Maile ( talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)