![]() | 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 |
Maile and anyone else who is watching, are we ready to go to FAC? We got some great feedback at the peer review and I think we've implemented all of it. I just did a major image revamp, which hopefully looks better. Anything gnome-y that still needs to be done? Karanacs ( talk) 17:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned on the FAC template, I have run the WP Spanish language version of the revolution through Google Translate and posted it at: Talk:Texas Revolution/Google translation from WP Spanish version. — Maile ( talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maile66 and any others still watching the page. Maggie Dennis (of the WMF) passed along a request by the HISTORY channel's historians for some minor wording changes, and I'm a bit torn. Thought I'd throw it up here:
Thoughts? Karanacs ( talk) 19:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following articles about wars are already at FA status and may be good guidelines for how to best summarize and structure the article.
The article says "Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the United States also claimed the land east of the Sabine River, all the way to the Rio Grande." I find this somewhat confusing; if the U.S. claimed territory east of the Sabine River, how does that stretch of land extend to the Rio Grande, which is entirely west of the Sabine? I think I know what is meant here (examining these maps), but I think some readers would be bewildered by this wording. Could someone find a way to make this clearer?
Also, I find the wikilink to Louisiana here to be a bit strange. Certainly Texas was not bordered by the state of Louisiana during this period. I suggest either Louisiana (New France) or Louisiana (New Spain) as possible alternative options, with the former being my personal preference. -- Philpill691 ( talk) 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I find it quite unlikely that Santa Anna would have "stepped down" in order to lead the army personally (why would that even be necessary?), and the reference to Hardin doesnt strike me as sufficiently good for the topic of Mexican politics. I could not find corroboration of Santa Anna having stepped down in any of the immediate references about his life. I think this should be removed from the article and from the Today's Featured Article blub unless a better source can be found to corroborate it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
For reference purposes, Talk:Texas Revolution/Tornel Decree is the prose and two books it can be found in. — Maile ( talk) 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Stats have come back up. For May 25, this article had 26,131 views; May 26 had 10,646; May 27 stats seem to be lost; May 28 stats 5,955.
Battle of the Alamo stats has a one-time spike on May 26 to 10, 726 views
Battle of San Jacinto has 10,762 views on May 26 and 8,636 on June 2. The article is still being worked on, but next week's chapter in Texas Rising is supposedly about the Battle of San Jacinto. — Maile ( talk) 19:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I manually reversed a revision that struck me a rather racistly anti-Tejano. It also mentioned the Catholic Church lending money to Santa Anna. This was a very intriguing statement I hadn't heard before (it does fit with some aspects of Santa Anna's politics) but could find no reference to it. The revision about Catholic loans cited Robert Scott's After the Alamo. When looking at reviews of Robert Scott's books on Amazon, it appears his Historical accuracy is very questionable. (Please check for yourself)... also here is a Texas A&M History Professor's review (denunciation) of After the Alamo: http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/central/books/reviews/after_alamo.html
I am proposing removing Scott's book from the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwolfe23 ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ooops, thought the edit had been reversed, but now I see Maile has reversed his own edit. 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) — BobWölfé23 and... that the Scott reference has been removed. So here's the completely newbie question... Was my course of action (starting this talk section) the most efficient (in terms of consensus) way to go? or what could I have done to make it easier for all? Bobwolfe23 ( talk) 03:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I'm quitting Wikipedia due to misbehavior, bullying, gaslighting and other harassment by NewsAndEventsGuy and Bondegezou (see /info/en/?search=User_talk:LavaBaron#80.25_likely_I_just_quit._Make_that_90.25. for details, noting they filed a bad-faith ANI action trying to get me blocked out of spite as well as their IP vandalism). Today the only thing I'm doing is closing down my involvement with one or two pages so nobody expects me to respond to anything.
Sorry Maile, MiztuhX, Bobwolfe... So long, and thanks for all the fish! Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In the Background section: "Texas was very sparsely populated, with fewer than 3,500 residents,[Note 3] and only about 200 soldiers,[11][12] which made it extremely vulnerable to attacks by native tribes and American filibusters.[13]"
Note 3 states: "This number excludes native tribes." I would like to replace that with: "The Indigenous peoples of Texas included the Lupin Apaches, Jumanos, Coahuiltecans, Tonkawas, Karankawas, Caddos, Comanches, and Wichitas. By the time of Mexican independence, the Indigenous population of the province was around fifty thousand, a number which would later grow in the next decade as some ten thousand Cherokees, Seminoles, Shawnees and many other Indigenous communities east of the Mississippi, avoided forced removal by the United States by taking refuge in Mexico. (Dunbar-Ortiz, 126). MiztuhX ( talk) 03:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is my assessment:
This is the first sentence (in bold) removed by @ Bobwolfe23: Many were slave owners, and most brought with them significant prejudices against other races, attitudes often applied to the Tejanos, where they mingled with the biases and prejudices of the Tejanos and those of indigenous peoples
So, what were these "significant prejudices against other races" held by these U.S. Southerners? According to Dunbar-Ortiz in "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States," (2014), Anglo-American racism was based on "Indian hating and white supremacy [which] were part and parcel of 'democracy' and 'freedom.'" (p.117) The populist poet Walt Whitman stated it thusly: "The nigg**, like the Injun, will be eliminated; it is the law of the races, of history." (p.117) And finally: "Whitman's sentiments reflected the established U.S. origin myth that had the frontier settlers replacing the Native peoples as historical destiny, adding his own theoretical twist of what would later be called Social Darwinism." (p.118) The successive invasions and occupations of Indigenous nations and Mexico was colonialist and imperialist... "Mexico was just another Indian nation to be crushed." (p.118)
Therefore, in order to define these "prejudices" and give readers a better idea of the mindset and motivation of most "Texians," I suggest changing the above sentence to: "Many were slave owners, who brought with them racist attitudes and a belief of white supremacy over Indigenous peoples, African-Americans, and Mexicans." Comments, anyone?
I'll deal with the second half of the sentence later. MiztuhX ( talk) 02:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not a English native speaker, so understand my doubt, can "Texas" be an adjective? It would be be like "America revolution" instead of "American". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARX, Julius ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
You need more facts Abayomi Amusa ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, now confirmed as a blocked sock of SkepticAnonymous, made numerous and questionable edits to this article beginning January 22, 2016. I have reverted this Featured Article back to its state before this sock made any of the edits. — Maile ( talk) 18:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
History of Mexico First Republic was removed. Don't do that again. Discuss here anytime, but do not remove a sidebar on a Featured Article. Especially since this article is of vital importance to the history of Mexico. — Maile ( talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit which has the summary Removed dubious statement without citation. That material absolutely has a citation at the end of the next sentence that applies to both sentences. Wikipedia does not say we need to stick a citation at the end of each and every sentence. But for proof, dig out the Haley book Lone Star Rising, and look at pp 60 and 64, exactly as the citation lists it. You will see that it sources those statements. — Maile ( talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The article repeatedly uses this odd phrase. I had thought that, like the NFL team, something from Texas was Texan and not Texian. Perhaps it's an academic distinction separating the Republic of Texas from the US state of Texas? If so it should be explained. 86.139.252.111 ( talk) 13:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see confirmed sockpuppets of SkepticAnonymous
|
---|
Who the hell let this (Redacted) be a source for this article? (Redacted) Scott, Robert (2000). After the Alamo. Plano, TX: Republic of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-585-22788-7. This book is a complete pile of lies - there's an excellent review of it by a REAL historian here. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/central/books/reviews/after_alamo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.166 ( talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted)
It may be worth pointing out next time that this article was reviewed by historians from The History Channel (including, I suspect, Stephen Hardin himself), who had nothing to say about the book or the content from it. I see that a lot has been removed from the article already but I haven't looked at it in depth. I'm still on a self-imposed break from fighting on Wikipedia, so I'll be concentrating on my own little corner of WP for now (blame the Houston rodeo - I seem to be a bit obsessed with cowboys). Karanacs ( talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC) The "Used To Be About History" Channel seems to have screwed up their own research on it though http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/movies-tv/article/10-things-the-History-Channel-s-Texas-Rising-6299393.php#photo-7972816 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC) So I'm doing some more looking and it looks like this violates the WIKIPEDIA:SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCES guideline. "Republic of Texas Press" looks to be a vanity publisher or "print for hire" publisher that was a subset or subsidiary of Rowman & Littlefield, BUT when I tried to locate the book in their catalog, R&L have delisted every single book that was published under that name. When I go in and try to find them elsewhere I find that the name has basically been nonexistent after publishing a whole lot of dodgy books around the year 2000. The last thing it "published" was in 2009, and that was a work-for-hire tourist book "Exploring Dallas With Children" 4th Edition. https://openlibrary.org/publishers/Republic_of_Texas_Press When I try to find the author I come up with a few other books "Blood at Sand Creek", "Plain Enemies" and "Glory, Glory, Glorieta: The Gettysburg of the West". Each of these is full of historical errors, map errors, and general incompetence. Also, the guidelines state that to even consider a SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCE for usage, they have to be a credentialed expert in their field. Copied direct from Amazon, the background of incompetent writer Robert Scott is "Bob Scott lives in north central Michigan with his son and a cat. He is a past resident of several Texas cities," and that is the extent of his supposed qualifications. If I tried to use this shoddy excuse for a book in my classes, my profs would flunk me and with good reason!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I went and bought the book off amazon. It's a fucking joke. 1st page, the author claims that Cherokees (located nowhere close to Texas) were fighting with settlers instead of the Comanche. His references to maps are all over the place too, at one point he seems to think that San Antonio is east of Austin. Maybe the author took one too many hits with a crack pipe or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
|
This article appears to completely omit the context of the revolution, which totally slants the view. There probably should be more mentioned about how Texas had originally wanted to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824, and that Mexico was a federal republic, modeled in part after the U.S., and that Texas was not the only state to rebel, but was also not the only state to actually successfully declare independence. The Republic of Yucatan also declared independence for the same exact reasons as Texas, but that is not what is usually written. Instead, you get a very biased view of history that ignore certain inconvenient facts.
Personally, instead of having each one of those biased groups keep overwriting the other biased group's points, I would like to see competing facts and information and theories posted, and let readers make up their mind, rather than people continually deleting inconvenient facts that do not align with their view of Texas and the revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The statement "the Mexican government believed the United States had instigated the Texas insurrection with the goal of annexation" is probably false, especially if you factor in the fact that nearly half the other Mexican states openly rebelled and a huge number declared independence, that all of them, including Texas, were originally demanding the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 before declaring independence, and two actually succeeded in leaving the Mexican union (the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Yucatan). I'd love to see some evidence where the Mexican government thought that Texas was demanding the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 for different reasons than the other rebelling states. Texas and Yucatan and others only declared independence when their efforts to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824 failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Texas Revolution. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ The ed17: and User talk:141.131.2.3 when redoing the lead, we need to take into consideration that the Texas Revolution was not just a bunch of white guys from America. One of the issues I had before @ Karanacs: reworked the article, is when I ran a search through the text and it was absent of any Texas-Mexican participation on the Texas side of the revolution, Let's please not accidentally lapse back to that. The Mexicans in Texas were it in for many reasons, but it's doubtful Texas would have ever broken with Mexico without participation of an armed force of Mexican-ancestry soldiers/scouts. Both American colonists and native Texas Mexicans had different views for why they participated. Erasmo Seguín, Juan Seguín – their families had come from the Canary islands and settled San Antonio. Also, José María Jesús Carbajal was mentored by Stephen F. Austin, and became a guerilla fighter who hated Santa Anna, but he loved Mexico. Even among the American colonists, not all of them wanted a break with Mexico. Plácido Benavides from Victoria brought about 200 Mexican men to oust General Cos during the Siege of Béxar, but he never wanted a break with Mexico. Take a look at List of Alamo defenders. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Mexicans who fought against Santa Anna, with different goals in mind. We can't eliminate them, and it wasn't as clear as most wanting a break with Mexico. There were a hefty number of Mexicans under Juan Seguin who were not only scouts at the Alamo, but also fought with Houston all the way to the final Battle of San Jacinto. Many issues. Maybe it's not as easy as it looks to rewrite the lead. Discuss here, OK?
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)— Maile ( talk) 19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, this featured article seems to miss the Siete Leyes by Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna which effectively abolished the current federal republic and established a dictatorship-like central republic. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 23:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Santa Anna soon revealed himself to be a centralist, transitioning the Mexican government to a centralized government. In 1835, the 1824 Constitution was overturned; state legislatures were dismissed, militias disbanded.The reason you can't find any references to "Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna" in the article is that Juan wasn't Santa Anna's name. ‑ Iridescent 09:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the writing style of this page suffers from quality issues. Consider: "The new Texas government and army met their doom...": met their doom?
Consider the following:
"What is significant is a Spanish royalist lieutenant named Antonio López de Santa Anna fought in this battle and followed his superiors' orders to take no prisoners. Another interesting note is two founding fathers of the Republic of Texas and future signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836, José Antonio Navarro and José Francisco Ruiz, took part in the Gutiérrez–Magee Expedition"
"What is significant" and "Another interesting note"? ... not a good way to introduce a new statement or idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaudoin ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is this book by a racist who isn't a historian quoted all over the page? Seriously what the fuck, "Republic of Texas Press", a pay-to-print scam publisher?
There are three books cited from Republic of Texas Press, which is an imprint of the publisher Rowman & Littlefield, and that is certainly not pay-to-print. The one mentioned is only cited once, the two others are more extensively so. It's not an academic press and I can't say the qualifications of its authors - but a serious concern is being raised. It's not clear which author you are particularly criticizing.-- Pharos ( talk) 05:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Texas Tech University professor emeritus Alwyn Barrin the body text each time he's cited? ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Texas Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "interim" to "ad inerim" 70.123.147.67 ( talk) 21:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Flori4nK
t •
c
21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Barnesbarnsey ( talk) 21:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)I believe that adding a hyperlink to the words "annexed by the United States" (which are at the end of the 1st paragraph) in order to direct readers to the page "Texas annexation" would be very helpful, as an understanding of this later event is essential for those interested in Texan history.
From the lede: " the rights of its citizens had become increasingly curtailed, particularly regarding immigration from the United States". There is clearly something wrong there. Citizens don't need a right to immigrate from a different country. Could the writing be lifted from a non-neutral source? In any case, it needs correction. Jd2718 ( talk) 04:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Texas Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe you need to edit or delete this line: Mexico had officially abolished slavery in Texas in 1830, and the desire of Anglo settlers to maintain the institution of chattel slavery in Texas was also a major cause of secession.[6][7][8]
You can delete it, since the author of this clearly has racial motives in mind and slavery was in no way a major cause of independence from Mexico, as you see in his portion on the Talk page and in fact, in the rest of your article which covers the real reasons why Texas wanted Independence.
Or you can edit/replace it to read as follows:
There were several main causes that led Texas to declare its independence from Mexico: 1) Continued armed conflict and political turmoil between Texas settlers and the Mexican government; 2) The re-introduction of suspended tariffs and certain taxes to Texas settlers in 1830 and Mexico’s military enforcement of them; 3) Continuing turmoil and unrest within the Mexican government itself, which resulted in instability and the desire for Texas to have its own administration; 4) Mexico’s introduction of laws against Anglo-American immigration into Texas; 5) The imprisonment of Stephen F. Austin in Mexico for 18 months, which angered many settlers; 6) The dictatorial and centralist type of government in Mexico City, which conflicted with Texan’s who were used to the United States’ Republic style of government; 7) Santa Anna’s “Seven Laws” of 1836, reconstituting all Mexican states (including Texas, which was part of Coahuila) as military districts; 8) The violence shown against Texas settlers by Mexican authorities with no legal way for the settlers to redress the government; 9) The lack of government supported education; 10) The forcing of settlers into Catholicism, without the freedom to worship as they chose; 11) The lack of the Mexican government to protect settlers from hostile Indian Tribes, and sometimes joining with the Tribes to attack Texans All of these problems culminated in the Battle of Gonzales in 1835, when Mexican authorities were sent to retrieve a cannon given to the settlers to protect them from Indians, and they were met with the famous line: Come and Take It.
Sources:
[1] Britannica.com/topic/Texas-Revolution [2] Texas Declaration of Independence, March 2, 1836 (Texas State Library and Archives Commission) [3] Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans, by T.R. Fehrenbach [4] Texas State Historical Association, Handbook of Texas: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/gonzales-battle-of Tammywarren ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
22:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)"I am the owner of one slave only, an old decrepit woman, not worth much, but in this matter I should feel that my constitutional rights as a Mexican were just as much infringed, as they would be if I had a thousand." [1]
" GalantFan ( talk) 04:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)"Texas must be a slave country. Circumstances and unavoidable necessity compel it. It is the wish of the people there, and it is my duty to do all I can, prudently, in favor of it. I will do so."
References
![]() | 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 |
Maile and anyone else who is watching, are we ready to go to FAC? We got some great feedback at the peer review and I think we've implemented all of it. I just did a major image revamp, which hopefully looks better. Anything gnome-y that still needs to be done? Karanacs ( talk) 17:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned on the FAC template, I have run the WP Spanish language version of the revolution through Google Translate and posted it at: Talk:Texas Revolution/Google translation from WP Spanish version. — Maile ( talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maile66 and any others still watching the page. Maggie Dennis (of the WMF) passed along a request by the HISTORY channel's historians for some minor wording changes, and I'm a bit torn. Thought I'd throw it up here:
Thoughts? Karanacs ( talk) 19:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following articles about wars are already at FA status and may be good guidelines for how to best summarize and structure the article.
The article says "Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the United States also claimed the land east of the Sabine River, all the way to the Rio Grande." I find this somewhat confusing; if the U.S. claimed territory east of the Sabine River, how does that stretch of land extend to the Rio Grande, which is entirely west of the Sabine? I think I know what is meant here (examining these maps), but I think some readers would be bewildered by this wording. Could someone find a way to make this clearer?
Also, I find the wikilink to Louisiana here to be a bit strange. Certainly Texas was not bordered by the state of Louisiana during this period. I suggest either Louisiana (New France) or Louisiana (New Spain) as possible alternative options, with the former being my personal preference. -- Philpill691 ( talk) 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I find it quite unlikely that Santa Anna would have "stepped down" in order to lead the army personally (why would that even be necessary?), and the reference to Hardin doesnt strike me as sufficiently good for the topic of Mexican politics. I could not find corroboration of Santa Anna having stepped down in any of the immediate references about his life. I think this should be removed from the article and from the Today's Featured Article blub unless a better source can be found to corroborate it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
For reference purposes, Talk:Texas Revolution/Tornel Decree is the prose and two books it can be found in. — Maile ( talk) 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Stats have come back up. For May 25, this article had 26,131 views; May 26 had 10,646; May 27 stats seem to be lost; May 28 stats 5,955.
Battle of the Alamo stats has a one-time spike on May 26 to 10, 726 views
Battle of San Jacinto has 10,762 views on May 26 and 8,636 on June 2. The article is still being worked on, but next week's chapter in Texas Rising is supposedly about the Battle of San Jacinto. — Maile ( talk) 19:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I manually reversed a revision that struck me a rather racistly anti-Tejano. It also mentioned the Catholic Church lending money to Santa Anna. This was a very intriguing statement I hadn't heard before (it does fit with some aspects of Santa Anna's politics) but could find no reference to it. The revision about Catholic loans cited Robert Scott's After the Alamo. When looking at reviews of Robert Scott's books on Amazon, it appears his Historical accuracy is very questionable. (Please check for yourself)... also here is a Texas A&M History Professor's review (denunciation) of After the Alamo: http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/central/books/reviews/after_alamo.html
I am proposing removing Scott's book from the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwolfe23 ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ooops, thought the edit had been reversed, but now I see Maile has reversed his own edit. 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) — BobWölfé23 and... that the Scott reference has been removed. So here's the completely newbie question... Was my course of action (starting this talk section) the most efficient (in terms of consensus) way to go? or what could I have done to make it easier for all? Bobwolfe23 ( talk) 03:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I'm quitting Wikipedia due to misbehavior, bullying, gaslighting and other harassment by NewsAndEventsGuy and Bondegezou (see /info/en/?search=User_talk:LavaBaron#80.25_likely_I_just_quit._Make_that_90.25. for details, noting they filed a bad-faith ANI action trying to get me blocked out of spite as well as their IP vandalism). Today the only thing I'm doing is closing down my involvement with one or two pages so nobody expects me to respond to anything.
Sorry Maile, MiztuhX, Bobwolfe... So long, and thanks for all the fish! Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In the Background section: "Texas was very sparsely populated, with fewer than 3,500 residents,[Note 3] and only about 200 soldiers,[11][12] which made it extremely vulnerable to attacks by native tribes and American filibusters.[13]"
Note 3 states: "This number excludes native tribes." I would like to replace that with: "The Indigenous peoples of Texas included the Lupin Apaches, Jumanos, Coahuiltecans, Tonkawas, Karankawas, Caddos, Comanches, and Wichitas. By the time of Mexican independence, the Indigenous population of the province was around fifty thousand, a number which would later grow in the next decade as some ten thousand Cherokees, Seminoles, Shawnees and many other Indigenous communities east of the Mississippi, avoided forced removal by the United States by taking refuge in Mexico. (Dunbar-Ortiz, 126). MiztuhX ( talk) 03:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is my assessment:
This is the first sentence (in bold) removed by @ Bobwolfe23: Many were slave owners, and most brought with them significant prejudices against other races, attitudes often applied to the Tejanos, where they mingled with the biases and prejudices of the Tejanos and those of indigenous peoples
So, what were these "significant prejudices against other races" held by these U.S. Southerners? According to Dunbar-Ortiz in "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States," (2014), Anglo-American racism was based on "Indian hating and white supremacy [which] were part and parcel of 'democracy' and 'freedom.'" (p.117) The populist poet Walt Whitman stated it thusly: "The nigg**, like the Injun, will be eliminated; it is the law of the races, of history." (p.117) And finally: "Whitman's sentiments reflected the established U.S. origin myth that had the frontier settlers replacing the Native peoples as historical destiny, adding his own theoretical twist of what would later be called Social Darwinism." (p.118) The successive invasions and occupations of Indigenous nations and Mexico was colonialist and imperialist... "Mexico was just another Indian nation to be crushed." (p.118)
Therefore, in order to define these "prejudices" and give readers a better idea of the mindset and motivation of most "Texians," I suggest changing the above sentence to: "Many were slave owners, who brought with them racist attitudes and a belief of white supremacy over Indigenous peoples, African-Americans, and Mexicans." Comments, anyone?
I'll deal with the second half of the sentence later. MiztuhX ( talk) 02:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not a English native speaker, so understand my doubt, can "Texas" be an adjective? It would be be like "America revolution" instead of "American". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARX, Julius ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
You need more facts Abayomi Amusa ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, now confirmed as a blocked sock of SkepticAnonymous, made numerous and questionable edits to this article beginning January 22, 2016. I have reverted this Featured Article back to its state before this sock made any of the edits. — Maile ( talk) 18:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
History of Mexico First Republic was removed. Don't do that again. Discuss here anytime, but do not remove a sidebar on a Featured Article. Especially since this article is of vital importance to the history of Mexico. — Maile ( talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit which has the summary Removed dubious statement without citation. That material absolutely has a citation at the end of the next sentence that applies to both sentences. Wikipedia does not say we need to stick a citation at the end of each and every sentence. But for proof, dig out the Haley book Lone Star Rising, and look at pp 60 and 64, exactly as the citation lists it. You will see that it sources those statements. — Maile ( talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The article repeatedly uses this odd phrase. I had thought that, like the NFL team, something from Texas was Texan and not Texian. Perhaps it's an academic distinction separating the Republic of Texas from the US state of Texas? If so it should be explained. 86.139.252.111 ( talk) 13:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see confirmed sockpuppets of SkepticAnonymous
|
---|
Who the hell let this (Redacted) be a source for this article? (Redacted) Scott, Robert (2000). After the Alamo. Plano, TX: Republic of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-585-22788-7. This book is a complete pile of lies - there's an excellent review of it by a REAL historian here. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/central/books/reviews/after_alamo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.166 ( talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted)
It may be worth pointing out next time that this article was reviewed by historians from The History Channel (including, I suspect, Stephen Hardin himself), who had nothing to say about the book or the content from it. I see that a lot has been removed from the article already but I haven't looked at it in depth. I'm still on a self-imposed break from fighting on Wikipedia, so I'll be concentrating on my own little corner of WP for now (blame the Houston rodeo - I seem to be a bit obsessed with cowboys). Karanacs ( talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC) The "Used To Be About History" Channel seems to have screwed up their own research on it though http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/movies-tv/article/10-things-the-History-Channel-s-Texas-Rising-6299393.php#photo-7972816 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC) So I'm doing some more looking and it looks like this violates the WIKIPEDIA:SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCES guideline. "Republic of Texas Press" looks to be a vanity publisher or "print for hire" publisher that was a subset or subsidiary of Rowman & Littlefield, BUT when I tried to locate the book in their catalog, R&L have delisted every single book that was published under that name. When I go in and try to find them elsewhere I find that the name has basically been nonexistent after publishing a whole lot of dodgy books around the year 2000. The last thing it "published" was in 2009, and that was a work-for-hire tourist book "Exploring Dallas With Children" 4th Edition. https://openlibrary.org/publishers/Republic_of_Texas_Press When I try to find the author I come up with a few other books "Blood at Sand Creek", "Plain Enemies" and "Glory, Glory, Glorieta: The Gettysburg of the West". Each of these is full of historical errors, map errors, and general incompetence. Also, the guidelines state that to even consider a SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCE for usage, they have to be a credentialed expert in their field. Copied direct from Amazon, the background of incompetent writer Robert Scott is "Bob Scott lives in north central Michigan with his son and a cat. He is a past resident of several Texas cities," and that is the extent of his supposed qualifications. If I tried to use this shoddy excuse for a book in my classes, my profs would flunk me and with good reason!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I went and bought the book off amazon. It's a fucking joke. 1st page, the author claims that Cherokees (located nowhere close to Texas) were fighting with settlers instead of the Comanche. His references to maps are all over the place too, at one point he seems to think that San Antonio is east of Austin. Maybe the author took one too many hits with a crack pipe or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
|
This article appears to completely omit the context of the revolution, which totally slants the view. There probably should be more mentioned about how Texas had originally wanted to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824, and that Mexico was a federal republic, modeled in part after the U.S., and that Texas was not the only state to rebel, but was also not the only state to actually successfully declare independence. The Republic of Yucatan also declared independence for the same exact reasons as Texas, but that is not what is usually written. Instead, you get a very biased view of history that ignore certain inconvenient facts.
Personally, instead of having each one of those biased groups keep overwriting the other biased group's points, I would like to see competing facts and information and theories posted, and let readers make up their mind, rather than people continually deleting inconvenient facts that do not align with their view of Texas and the revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The statement "the Mexican government believed the United States had instigated the Texas insurrection with the goal of annexation" is probably false, especially if you factor in the fact that nearly half the other Mexican states openly rebelled and a huge number declared independence, that all of them, including Texas, were originally demanding the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 before declaring independence, and two actually succeeded in leaving the Mexican union (the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Yucatan). I'd love to see some evidence where the Mexican government thought that Texas was demanding the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 for different reasons than the other rebelling states. Texas and Yucatan and others only declared independence when their efforts to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824 failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Texas Revolution. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ The ed17: and User talk:141.131.2.3 when redoing the lead, we need to take into consideration that the Texas Revolution was not just a bunch of white guys from America. One of the issues I had before @ Karanacs: reworked the article, is when I ran a search through the text and it was absent of any Texas-Mexican participation on the Texas side of the revolution, Let's please not accidentally lapse back to that. The Mexicans in Texas were it in for many reasons, but it's doubtful Texas would have ever broken with Mexico without participation of an armed force of Mexican-ancestry soldiers/scouts. Both American colonists and native Texas Mexicans had different views for why they participated. Erasmo Seguín, Juan Seguín – their families had come from the Canary islands and settled San Antonio. Also, José María Jesús Carbajal was mentored by Stephen F. Austin, and became a guerilla fighter who hated Santa Anna, but he loved Mexico. Even among the American colonists, not all of them wanted a break with Mexico. Plácido Benavides from Victoria brought about 200 Mexican men to oust General Cos during the Siege of Béxar, but he never wanted a break with Mexico. Take a look at List of Alamo defenders. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Mexicans who fought against Santa Anna, with different goals in mind. We can't eliminate them, and it wasn't as clear as most wanting a break with Mexico. There were a hefty number of Mexicans under Juan Seguin who were not only scouts at the Alamo, but also fought with Houston all the way to the final Battle of San Jacinto. Many issues. Maybe it's not as easy as it looks to rewrite the lead. Discuss here, OK?
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)— Maile ( talk) 19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, this featured article seems to miss the Siete Leyes by Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna which effectively abolished the current federal republic and established a dictatorship-like central republic. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 23:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Santa Anna soon revealed himself to be a centralist, transitioning the Mexican government to a centralized government. In 1835, the 1824 Constitution was overturned; state legislatures were dismissed, militias disbanded.The reason you can't find any references to "Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna" in the article is that Juan wasn't Santa Anna's name. ‑ Iridescent 09:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the writing style of this page suffers from quality issues. Consider: "The new Texas government and army met their doom...": met their doom?
Consider the following:
"What is significant is a Spanish royalist lieutenant named Antonio López de Santa Anna fought in this battle and followed his superiors' orders to take no prisoners. Another interesting note is two founding fathers of the Republic of Texas and future signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836, José Antonio Navarro and José Francisco Ruiz, took part in the Gutiérrez–Magee Expedition"
"What is significant" and "Another interesting note"? ... not a good way to introduce a new statement or idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaudoin ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is this book by a racist who isn't a historian quoted all over the page? Seriously what the fuck, "Republic of Texas Press", a pay-to-print scam publisher?
There are three books cited from Republic of Texas Press, which is an imprint of the publisher Rowman & Littlefield, and that is certainly not pay-to-print. The one mentioned is only cited once, the two others are more extensively so. It's not an academic press and I can't say the qualifications of its authors - but a serious concern is being raised. It's not clear which author you are particularly criticizing.-- Pharos ( talk) 05:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Texas Tech University professor emeritus Alwyn Barrin the body text each time he's cited? ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Texas Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "interim" to "ad inerim" 70.123.147.67 ( talk) 21:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Flori4nK
t •
c
21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Barnesbarnsey ( talk) 21:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)I believe that adding a hyperlink to the words "annexed by the United States" (which are at the end of the 1st paragraph) in order to direct readers to the page "Texas annexation" would be very helpful, as an understanding of this later event is essential for those interested in Texan history.
From the lede: " the rights of its citizens had become increasingly curtailed, particularly regarding immigration from the United States". There is clearly something wrong there. Citizens don't need a right to immigrate from a different country. Could the writing be lifted from a non-neutral source? In any case, it needs correction. Jd2718 ( talk) 04:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Texas Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe you need to edit or delete this line: Mexico had officially abolished slavery in Texas in 1830, and the desire of Anglo settlers to maintain the institution of chattel slavery in Texas was also a major cause of secession.[6][7][8]
You can delete it, since the author of this clearly has racial motives in mind and slavery was in no way a major cause of independence from Mexico, as you see in his portion on the Talk page and in fact, in the rest of your article which covers the real reasons why Texas wanted Independence.
Or you can edit/replace it to read as follows:
There were several main causes that led Texas to declare its independence from Mexico: 1) Continued armed conflict and political turmoil between Texas settlers and the Mexican government; 2) The re-introduction of suspended tariffs and certain taxes to Texas settlers in 1830 and Mexico’s military enforcement of them; 3) Continuing turmoil and unrest within the Mexican government itself, which resulted in instability and the desire for Texas to have its own administration; 4) Mexico’s introduction of laws against Anglo-American immigration into Texas; 5) The imprisonment of Stephen F. Austin in Mexico for 18 months, which angered many settlers; 6) The dictatorial and centralist type of government in Mexico City, which conflicted with Texan’s who were used to the United States’ Republic style of government; 7) Santa Anna’s “Seven Laws” of 1836, reconstituting all Mexican states (including Texas, which was part of Coahuila) as military districts; 8) The violence shown against Texas settlers by Mexican authorities with no legal way for the settlers to redress the government; 9) The lack of government supported education; 10) The forcing of settlers into Catholicism, without the freedom to worship as they chose; 11) The lack of the Mexican government to protect settlers from hostile Indian Tribes, and sometimes joining with the Tribes to attack Texans All of these problems culminated in the Battle of Gonzales in 1835, when Mexican authorities were sent to retrieve a cannon given to the settlers to protect them from Indians, and they were met with the famous line: Come and Take It.
Sources:
[1] Britannica.com/topic/Texas-Revolution [2] Texas Declaration of Independence, March 2, 1836 (Texas State Library and Archives Commission) [3] Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans, by T.R. Fehrenbach [4] Texas State Historical Association, Handbook of Texas: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/gonzales-battle-of Tammywarren ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
22:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)"I am the owner of one slave only, an old decrepit woman, not worth much, but in this matter I should feel that my constitutional rights as a Mexican were just as much infringed, as they would be if I had a thousand." [1]
" GalantFan ( talk) 04:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)"Texas must be a slave country. Circumstances and unavoidable necessity compel it. It is the wish of the people there, and it is my duty to do all I can, prudently, in favor of it. I will do so."
References