|
Please propose your changes on the article's talk page so they can be properly discussed. Mark Shaw ( talk) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Lochalsh here; You say "As harsh as it sounds, slaves were also not considered settlers. None of them purchased land" US slavery was one of the most extreme forms of 'chattel slavery' known to history. What you are describing is captive humans who the settlers forcibly brought with them from the USA and who the ‘settlers’ illegally held in captivity against the law that then applied in Tejas, that is Mexican law. I feel pretty confident in saying that those whites who entered Tejas in 1822-1832 who did not purchase land were, and still are, considered settlers! I am very sorry to say this, but your article seems hideously biases and totally ignores the fundamental causes of the Texan Revolution. You seem determined to avoid even mentioning slavery at all costs. Like many others, I first heard of the Battle of the Alamo when I saw the 1960 film (I even bought the record of the sound track) and so I then thought it was a matter of Texicans fighting for liberty against a Mexican authoritarian dictatorship. Later on, learning that Texas was a slave state and Mexico a free state I realised that it was not such a simple conflict. Then reading this article I found its John Wayne simplistic 'good v bad view of eventw very disturbung. I would submit that the overwhelming reason why ‘Background’ must include information on how the English-speaking settlers came to be in Tejas, their illegal importation of US style chattel slavery into Mexico and their refusal to honour the undertakings they made in order to enter Tejas,is that otherwise you are telling Texan folk tales not writing an historical account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.84.109 ( talk) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lochals1912. I saw your edit summary "Giving a more balanced and detailie intro to 'Backgound' Just becouse the latest writers have ignored the role of slavery in the Texas Revolution does not mean that it is proper to do so". That's actually not the case. Wikipedia policies, specifically
the one on original research,
the one on verifiability, and the
undue weight guideline state that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a summary of information that is presented in
reliable (preferably scholarly) sources. If scholarly sources present arguments A and B with only a little coverage of C, then WP articles should primarily present arguments A and B with only a little coverage of C. The article
Battle of the Alamo is supposed to primarily cover the battle. The details of what led up to the battle should be covered in more depth in
Texas Revolution and
Mexican Texas - and they are, although those articles are incomplete.
Karanacs (
talk)
19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Please propose your changes on the article's talk page so they can be properly discussed. Mark Shaw ( talk) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Lochalsh here; You say "As harsh as it sounds, slaves were also not considered settlers. None of them purchased land" US slavery was one of the most extreme forms of 'chattel slavery' known to history. What you are describing is captive humans who the settlers forcibly brought with them from the USA and who the ‘settlers’ illegally held in captivity against the law that then applied in Tejas, that is Mexican law. I feel pretty confident in saying that those whites who entered Tejas in 1822-1832 who did not purchase land were, and still are, considered settlers! I am very sorry to say this, but your article seems hideously biases and totally ignores the fundamental causes of the Texan Revolution. You seem determined to avoid even mentioning slavery at all costs. Like many others, I first heard of the Battle of the Alamo when I saw the 1960 film (I even bought the record of the sound track) and so I then thought it was a matter of Texicans fighting for liberty against a Mexican authoritarian dictatorship. Later on, learning that Texas was a slave state and Mexico a free state I realised that it was not such a simple conflict. Then reading this article I found its John Wayne simplistic 'good v bad view of eventw very disturbung. I would submit that the overwhelming reason why ‘Background’ must include information on how the English-speaking settlers came to be in Tejas, their illegal importation of US style chattel slavery into Mexico and their refusal to honour the undertakings they made in order to enter Tejas,is that otherwise you are telling Texan folk tales not writing an historical account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.84.109 ( talk) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lochals1912. I saw your edit summary "Giving a more balanced and detailie intro to 'Backgound' Just becouse the latest writers have ignored the role of slavery in the Texas Revolution does not mean that it is proper to do so". That's actually not the case. Wikipedia policies, specifically
the one on original research,
the one on verifiability, and the
undue weight guideline state that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a summary of information that is presented in
reliable (preferably scholarly) sources. If scholarly sources present arguments A and B with only a little coverage of C, then WP articles should primarily present arguments A and B with only a little coverage of C. The article
Battle of the Alamo is supposed to primarily cover the battle. The details of what led up to the battle should be covered in more depth in
Texas Revolution and
Mexican Texas - and they are, although those articles are incomplete.
Karanacs (
talk)
19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)