Talk:Battle of the Alamo/Archive 2

Proposal to include Santa Anna's Viewpoint in Investment Section (like Bowie & Travis')
Hi Karanacs! On my talk page you said:


 * Hi! I reverted your edits to Battle of the Alamo and I wanted to explain why.  The article is attempting to strike the balance of neutral point of view, and specifically inserting Santa Anna's opinion - even if it is attributed as his opinion - tilts the balance a little at this particular place in the article. Inserting a quote and then editing out certain words doesn't actually make it more NPOV.  If you think the article balance is inappropriate as is, can we discuss in more detail on the article talk page?  Karanacs (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the reason I included a reference to the Santa Anna quote (from Fowler's biography "Santa Anna of Mexico") was to balance out the "Investment" section, which appears slanted to the views and actions of Bowie and Travis. At this crucial, defining moment, their actions, disagreement and rationale for fighting is presented... but what about Santa Anna's rationale?

Since this is a battle, there are 2 opposing forces. In a balanced, NPOV narrative, the leaders of both sides should be referenced. And the "Investment" section lacks Santa Ana's input as it currently stands.

Fowler provides Santa Anna's perspective in this crucial moment on p. 166 of his book:

"Giving the Texans one last chance, Santa Ana sent Colonel Juan Nepomuceno Almonte with his offer of allowing the men at the Alamo to walk away free as long as they promised never again to take up arms against the Mexican nation. A refusal of this generous offer would be equivalent to passing their own death sentence.  Colonel William Barret Travis replied by opening fire on the Mexican forces and, to quote Santa Anna, in so doing, sealed the fate of those obstinate men."

In his notes section, Fowler cites his source as being a book written by Santa Ana, "Manifiesto que de sus operaciones en la campaña de Tejas," 128-129.

Also, and, most tellingly: "With Travis having refused to surrender, Santa Anna ordered 'degüello' (fire and death), and no quarter was given.  All of the 183 men who chose to reject the offer of an amnesty died."

For this quote, Fowler cites a long list of sources, including AHSDN (?), a letter to the Minister of War José María Tornel, and Calcott, Jones, and Costeloe.

So, in order to improve the "Investment" section—in all fairness—it would be recommendable that the assessments of Santa Ana, as the opposing leader, be referenced.

Regards,

MiztuhX (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the only source I've seen that says that Santa Anna offered the men parole during the investment. All of the other sources say that Almonte informed the Texian representatives that a surrender must be unconditional, and that is why they refused.  This is also what Santa Anna offered later during the siege (when the Texians sent a representative to try to surrender), and it is the only offer made to the men who surrendered at Coleto.  I've no doubt his book said something different (Santa Anna was trying to defend his own reputation after the Goliad Massacre), but most historians don't think that's what actually happened.  (Note that most recent historians think more than 183 Texians died - Thomas Ricks Lindley presented that proof in a 2003 book.)  We can add information about the deguello if you think that's necessary.  I suspect I can find that in one of the sources already used in the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You could include a reference to 'degüello' if you'd like, but my main concern is crediting Santa Anna as also being an important participant in the investment during the exchange among Travis, Bowie, Jameson, Almonte, and Bartres, as the last two were reporting to and taking orders from him.


 * The original document that Fowler references for this quote is from "Santa Ana, printed defense, 1837, translated by Carlos Castañeda, 1928," specifically: "Manifesto which General Antonio Lopez de Santa-Anna addresses to his Fellow Citizens relative to his Operations during the Texas Campaign and his Capture 10 of May 1837, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution" reproduced on p.343 of ["The Alamo Reader: A Study in History" by Todd Hansen]


 * Here is the original quote that Fowler referenced on p.346 (oddly, no mention of parole) : "Before undertaking the assault and after the reply given to Travis who commanded the enemy fortification, I still wanted to try a generous measure, characteristic of Mexican kindness, and I offered life to the defendants who would surrender their arms and retire under oath not to take them up again against Mexico.  Colonel Don Juan Nepomuceno Almonte, through whom this generous offer was made, transmitted to me their reply which stated that they would let us know if they accepted and if not, they would renew the fire at a given hour.  They decided on the latter course and their decision irrevocably sealed their fate."


 * Now, this original quote makes no mention of "parole," so I hope we can place aside your concern that this quote contradicts other sources. Other details are the same:  Almonte is mentioned, Santa Anna offered terms of surrender, and the Texian leaders refused.


 * The key point here is the revelation of Santa Anna's mindset by the line: "They decided on the latter course and their decision sealed their fate."


 * It is this sense that I would like to see referenced in the investment, coming from the figure of Santa Anna because he, too, has a story to tell, an opinion to share regarding the "fatal" (according to him) decision taken by Travis.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Parole is the agreement that a prisoner of war (one who surrenders) is released on the condition that they not take up arms against the other side again. Cos and his men were paroled by the Texians after the Siege of Bexar, and the source you quoted is saying that Santa Anna offered the Texians a parole (just not using the term).
 * I understand that the primary source says that this is what Santa Anna offered, and that Fowler - a secondary source - repeats the claim. Other historians dismiss that claim, however.  It directly contradicts the Tornel Decree (which needs to be explicitly named in the article) that any foreigners fighting in Texas were pirates and could be summarily executed (which is what happened to almost everyone else who surrendered).
 * I do agree with you that there may be room to improve the section to include more about what the Mexican army was doing. This weekend I'll try to consult some of the books used in the article and see if there is anything that could be added.  Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we are tip-toeing around the central issue: that Santa Anna felt that Bowie, et.al sealed their own fate by rejecting terms of surrender at the onset, before hostilities had commenced.  By refusing to surrender, they brought on their demise.  It is this sort of "legalistic" thinking that he would use to defend his actions at Goliad using the Tornel decree.


 * In a related note, I believe historians—on all sides—have a definite bias when it comes to Santa Anna. He is portrayed as a despotic, ruthless villain by the Texians and the U.S., while the Mexicans viewed him as a traitor and a scapegoat, who lost (or gave away) half of the country.  Almonte would later become his bitter enemy and his rival for power, so I doubt he would write anything positive about Santa Anna.  Who else would be able to corroborate that offer during the investment?  The enemy was dead, and I doubt if any survivors would make a statement in support of Santa Anna; later, any potential witnesses among his troops were probably executed in the Battle of San Jacinto.  One is left with taking his word for what it's worth.  Hardly academic, but an historical voice, nonetheless.


 * I also understand that Santa Anna may have been trying to save face due to the Goliad Massacre—which haunted him for many years—but, legalistically, he was within his rights, stating that he was just following orders, as he was strictly following the Tornel Decree... "Law decrees and it is not the magistrate's responsibility to examine it, but to apply it... The prisoners of Goliad were condemned by the law." (Fowler, 168)


 * As to your statement that almost everyone else who surrendered was executed, remember the context of the investment, where Santa Anna made his offer of unconditional surrender before hostilities commenced, (unlike at Goliad where Texian forces surrendered after 2 days of battle). It is speculation that Santa Anna would have "summarily executed" the Alamo troops, since no precedent for this type of action exists (e.g. execution of troops who surrendered before hostilities had commenced).


 * Furthermore, in his defense, Santa Anna stated:


 * Who gives me power to override what the National Government has ordered in such categorical terms, pardoning delinquents of the caliber of these foreigners? Under which flag do they make war on our entire Republic, murdering our detachments treacherously, burning our villages, attacking the properties of our peaceful citizens, and attempting to rob a large chunk of our territory?  And you believe that the indignation of the country should fall upon me, as it indeed would, were I to protect these outlaws?  You can evidently tell that this is no war among brothers like the ones we have unfortunately had to suffer.  But it is not a war between nations either, in which...prisoners are respected and even exchanged.  These foreigners are bandits that have attacked the territory of the Republic to steal a part of it...; that is why the Supreme Government has declared, with reason, that they are pirates, and orders that they are treated and punished as such.  (Fowler, 168)  (This would make a great box quote, imho)


 * Subsequently, he was cleared of any wrong-doing by a government inquiry in Mexico. (see Fowler, 168)


 * In short, Santa Anna seems to be everybody's favorite "whipping boy," so it may be challenging to find historians who will validate his actions, as they would have been most likely influenced by one position or another, leading one to believe that there are 3 streams of history: Mexican, American, and Santa Anna (which is discredited and co-opted by the other two for their purposes).


 * That's why I like Fowler's "Santa Anna of Mexico" because it breaks with that tradition and tries to see the man for what he was and tried to accomplish within the context of these eventful, complex, and dynamic periods in Mexican and American history. Although (according to the Amazon page) Fowler's book is well-researched and carefully documented, I fear that the burden of proof for Santa Anna may be too great if one looks to other historians to "validate" or "endorse" his actions due to their bias, and thus, the holes in some narratives.


 * If all else fails, a possible solution could be including the quotes by Santa Anna and a note explaining the context, as is sometimes done with "With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution" by José Enrique de la Peña, and other historical orphans.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But, again, "that Santa Anna felt that Bowie, et.al sealed their own fate by rejecting terms of surrender at the onset, before hostilities had commenced. " is based, apparently solely, on Santa Anna's own writings after the battle when he was trying to defend his reputation. Other historians, including later ones, have rejected that interpretation.  (Note also that the Tornel Decree was pushed for by Santa Anna.)
 * There are several other examples of Texians surrendering before engaging in hostilities. 1) the Battle of San Patricio, at least one group of Texians were surrounded while asleep and surrendered without picking up their weapons.  They were executed.  They had not fought against Mexican troops before.  2)  A group of Americans were captured along the coast as they exited the ship bringing them to fight for Texas.  They were marched to Goliad and imprisoned with Fannin and his men.  They were originally included in Santa Anna's order to execute all the prisoners.  They were spared only because the courier (a Mexican officer) successfully argued to Santa Anna that this particular group of prisoners were captured without weapons (their guns hadn't been unloaded from the boat yet and they could argue that the guns weren't supposed to be unloaded).  Santa Anna then amended the order to spare that group.  The Texians at the Alamo already had their weapons, and most of the men present when the siege began were veterans of the fighting in fall 1835.  A warrant had been out for Travis's arrest for months.  I agree with the bulk of the historians that it's implausible to think their lives would have been spared.  (See, for example, Stuart, Jay (2008). Slaughter at Goliad: The Mexican Massacre of 400 Texas Volunteers. Naval Institute Press.)
 * Per Josefina Zoraida Vazquez, Santa Anna wasn't cleared in the trial, the judge determined it was for fact-finding only and refused to take action. The Tornel Decree was written at the behest of Santa Anna, and as dictator it was well within his power to ignore it.
 * I haven't read Fowler's book, but it sounds like a great resource for the article on Santa Anna. However, for this particular historical fact, advocating that Santa Anna had any intention of letting the Texians leave alive is a pretty fringe theory, and as such it shouldn't be included. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging for another opinion. Karanacs (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Am I correct here in understanding that the only thing of question is whether or not to include the phrase "and, according to Santa Anna, the refusal of his offer sealed the fate of those men" and the sourcing for it? I can offer no opinion on the source.  As for what Santa Anna felt, or believed, we humans tend to remember history as we want others to believe it happened. And whether it was the truth or not, maybe Santa Anna came to believe that's the way it happened. Perhaps offer, "In later years, Santa Anna claimed that...." and explain in a footnote why most historians reject it.— Maile  (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Maile, thanks for your suggestion. You're right in zeroing in on that phrase and your solution is a fair one.  Another such example appears in investment as:  "On learning this, Bowie and Travis mutually agreed to fire the cannon again[52][Note 9]"  I'm in the process of obtaining the books to understand how Todish and Edmonson integrated an apparently primary document by Santa Anna with American and/or Texian accounts of the same event, similar to what we are dealing with here...  Still, it's going o be interesting to see what "sources" they used for their account, e.g. primary, letters, memoirs, etc.  And then track them down, too, and see if they hold up to the same standards as are being applied to this quote by Santa Anna...MiztuhX (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015e (UTC)


 * I stand by Santa Anna's assertion that he felt that Bowie, et.al sealed their own fate by rejecting terms of surrender at the onset, before hostilities had commenced. By refusing to surrender, they brought on their demise.  It is this sort of "legalistic" thinking that he would use to defend his actions at Goliad using the Tornel decree.


 * Now, the assertion that he would have executed the Alamo defenders if they would have surrendered is speculation.


 * I really don't think that you disprove the point I have made about speculation with regards to the certain execution of the Alamo defenders by Santa Ana. Your reference to the 1) Battle of San Patricio:  " Mexican soldiers surprised the sleeping Texians in San Patricio in the early hours of February 27. After a fifteen-minute battle, all but six Texians had been killed or imprisoned. One Mexican soldier was killed and four injured" does not state that an offer of surrender before hostilities commenced was offered.  Plus, they fought for 15 minutes, and then were executed, the same procedure as was used at the Goliad, and advocated by the Tornel Decree.


 * 2) Santa Anna ammended the order, which leads credence to maybe he might have offered clemency to the Alamo defenders.  But, again, speculation that goes against Texian and/or American bias.


 * When you say that you "agree with the bulk of historians that it's implausible to think their lives would have been spared," are you saying that they have commented specifically on the investment at the Alamo?


 * Will check Josefina Zoraida Vasquez source and your statement that Santa Anna ignored Tornel decree.


 * I think Fowler's book will shed light on not just the article on Santa Anna, but all events in shared—and independent—Mexican and American history.


 * I reiterate use of Santa Ana quotes with a note as a possible compromise and/or solution.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't encyclopedic to rely on Santa Anna's primary source writings. If we quote them and/or Fowler's assertions that the cannon shot sealed their fate, we'd need to also show the alternative opinion - that most historians do not think that an offer of parole was made - they specifically say that Texians were offered only an unconditional surrender, which is quite different. Karanacs (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. Isn't it possible to show both sides in a very few words?  I assume MiztuhX is talking about this book, which I have not read...but did find that the Tornel Decree is part of the appendix.  Actually, I wish we had the Tornel Decree on Wikisource, so we could stick it at the bottom of a lot of articles.  But we don't.  isn't this the decree itself? — Maile  (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that is the text of the decree. I keep meaning to fill in the redlink but haven't done that yet. We do need to mention the decree by name and wikilink it in more articles, redlink or no. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . Re: your statement:  "Per Josefina Zoraida Vazquez, Santa Anna wasn't cleared in the trial, the judge determined it was for fact-finding only and refused to take action."


 * Yes, exactly, in the inquiry, the testimony (facts) of Santa Anna's compatriots cleared his name "of the accusation of having applied the law in a 'cruel and inhuman fashion.'" Fowler expands on pp.168-9:


 * "Urrea's statement cleared Santa Anna of applying the Tornel Decree with the knowledge that Fannin's men had surrendered believing they would not face the firing squad. However he made it known that he had suggested their lives be spared and that Santa Anna would have none of it.  Santa Anna thus cleared his name to the extent that the mass execution of Texans was consistent with the supreme government's decree of 30 December 1835, and there was no evidence that Urrea had agreed to spare the Texan's lives when they surrendered."


 * To reiterate, Santa Anna's name was cleared by the testimony of the men who spoke at this inquiry, and not by a judge's ruling.


 * Also, can you provide ample sources ("the bulk of the historians") who support your claim that Santa Anna's strict adherence to the Tornel Decree would have prevented him from granting amnesty to enemy agents before hostilities commenced in the investment to the Battle of the Alamo?


 * Otherwise, your conclusion that Santa Anna's quote (in Fowler) is "implausible" or even "fringe" may constitute original research. We've already established that Santa Anna spared some people, made some exceptions, evidence that does not support "your" conclusion.


 * In the WP:NOR page, please review "Reliable Sources" under WP:STICKTOSOURCE, specifically: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."


 * On the one source you do provide (Stuart, Jay (2008). Slaughter at Goliad: The Mexican Massacre of 400 Texas Volunteers. Naval Institute Press.), can you provide a page number? Some Mexican politicians and historians would call this an "execution," per implemenation of the Tornel Decree, so, again, with this source, there also seems to be a NPOV problem, as another competing source would need to be referenced for a balanced POV.


 * While this discussion continues, I believe that it would be appropriate to add at the end of the Investment on the article page to alert other editors to discuss this topic in the talk page.  Also, a header at the top of the page showing that this page is under revision and asking for assistance from other editors would be advisable.

Mex
 * MiztuhX (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't usually put headers at the top of the article asking for assistance unless there are really serious issues. This article needs an uplift, but the bulk of it is in good shape.  I'll try to post quote/page numbers a little later - may be this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , ALL articles on Wikipedia are "under revision". That's the structure of Wikipedia. Sticking "under revision" at the top of the article will surely result in someone immediately deleting it. At this point, there is no reason to stick "lopsided" or anything else in the section you want changed.  We know about it, and that's why we're here. The process for improvement is on the article talk page.  That's where it's discussed, and if a consensus is reached, the improvements are implemented. And how you ask for assistance is on the article talk page, or a Wikiproject associated with it (see top of this page). Most of those projects you see are not active. And every editor on Wikipedia is pursuing their own agenda with not necessarily time (or willingness) to help out on something not in their interest.  The Military History project has over 1,000 members, and I posted a notice over there inviting people to help here.  If others join in, fine.  If they don't, we continue.  What you might appreciate is that what we did on Texas Revolution recently is transform it from an article that only told one side to the story, to an article that is inclusive in both nationality and ethnicity. The reason we were able to do that is because of input we received on the article's talk page. I have no objection to Mexico's perspective on the Battle of the Alamo, if it can be sourced and balanced therein. We iron all that out here on this talk page. — Maile  (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

break
(outdent) Here are just a few sources for the fact that Mexican troops only offered an unconditional surrender (full source info in a section below) I think rather than nitpick this one item based on this one source, let's look at the article as a whole and see where changes need to be made. Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Todish, pp. 40–41.
 * Hardin, p. 127
 * Scott, p. 84
 * Santa Anna says the Texans begged for an opportunity to surrender, but that he refused them the opportunity. Enough diaries survive from both sides to know that the Mexican version of this incident is untrue
 * see also Winders, p. 115 "[Green B.] Jameson was told [by Mexican army representative] there would be no negotiating with the rebels but that they could surrender and throw themselves on the mercy of the government."
 * Tucker, p 166 "Santa Anna's desire was to make an example of the Alamo men for political purposes, as a lesson to other Texians and Tejanos in arms....[info about Zacatecas] ...If the generalissimo treated Mexican rebels in such a savage manner, then he was certainly about to treat the Anglo-Celts worse, especially because he wanted to make a lasting example out of them."


 * Agree - the total article. This might be the first time I've examined this article so closely.  May I say....I don't think you can underestimate how impressed I am with the sheer attention to detail and the research that went into what exists right now.  But, yeah, I need to hunker down and gnome it and find out what looks odd, based on much of what we discussed and learned in Texas Revolution. — Maile  (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Karanacs, Maile, at this point, we're just rehashing the same points. None of those sources are specific to the investment to the Battle of the Alamo, and you are taking that material out of context and applying it to a new situation, which is original research.  Over the course of my entries, I believe I have built a strong case for inclusion of Santa Anna's quote in the investment.  I have countered each of Karanacs' points with good arguments.  As the 3rd party, Maile initially offered a compromise:  "Perhaps offer, "In later years, Santa Anna claimed that...." and explain in a footnote why most historians reject it."  I stated that was acceptable, but nothing came of it, as Karanancs did not state an opinion.  I would ask for a vote, but since it will probably go against my position, my last resort will be WP:DRR.


 * Also, I understand you both are moving on with an update on the article, and that's great.


 * For my part, I thought I would try to contribute with a couple of small edits (Santa Anna at the investment, and the legend of Travis drawing a line in the dirt) just to "test the waters." I see that it is extremely difficult for an opposing view point to be considered for acceptance in this article, even though good sources were provided.  I do not know why this is so.


 * I would have liked to help write the new article. Since I read and understand Spanish, I have access to all those wonderful academic sources by Mexican historians, who cover this period, such as One Man's Country:  Santa Anna's Mexico Vol.II (2003), which is a planned three-volume set.  I read the intro on Amazon and it's unlike anything you will read in American history.  For instance, he states that the ruling classes in Mexico supported centralism and used the military to force peasants off their land in order to increase their wealth, which led me to think:  land-grab, the same motivation for the American and immigrant settlers to go--and to defend--Texas.


 * Anyway, I feel that if I were to present Mexican historians' version of the Texas Revolution—and the events leading up to it—it might be cast aside as "fringe," since it is not corroborated by Texan historians, and there would be no way for both of you to be able to endorse it. I imagine the roadblocks would be very similar to what I experienced with one, lone quote from Santa Anna.


 * I understand that you have asked me to join you in creating a new article, but I feel it's important to have this specific issue resolved on the talk page, since I have noted in the archive that many editors attempted suggestions, but nothing was resolved. Yes, I understand you review the talk pages for topics to address in the writing of the new article, but I don't feel that is a replacement for an active and engaged editor in real-time.


 * Honestly, there has to be some flexibility with regards to the Battle of the Alamo, as it is exceedingly complex, in the types of people, nationalities, competing nations (Mexico, United States, and other foreign powers), civil war in Mexico, pro-peace and pro-war movements in both nations and in Texas, Irish immigrants, African-Americans, Native Americans... You know this.  One should feel fortunate that there is a plethora of historical information in different languages and different contexts and interpretations for this event.  And, IMHO, there can be no one framework that will encapsulate this whole experience.  It cannot be beholden to just one narrative device; in order for this article to be worthy of the event, it needs to be all-encompassing, period.  And for this to happen, one needs to assume good faith that historians who advocate a different interpretation have done their due research, even if it is in a language you don't understand, or a position you don't share.  In other words, sometimes editors need to take a step back and recognize their limitations for the sake of the big picture...


 * In conclusion, I don't relish the chance to argue back-and-forth in order to explain and substantiate the viewpoints of authors who don't tow the traditional Texan line, and then, despite presenting their best arguments, have those views ignored or set aside. As a matter of fact, if a historian is a good one, there will be an integration of different movements, even within the Texan and Mexican canons.


 * That's my 2 cents.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ooooo, you read Spanish? I've had to be content with what few English translations I can find of Mexican historians' works.  I have a big problem with anything that is sourced solely to Santa Anna's writings from after the war. As Maile pointed out below, some of that information has been proven incorrect by other historians - including that only 6 Texians were spared and the scope of Mexican losses.  I've read Texas Revolution histories by American (Tejano and Anglo), Scottish, and German historians, and translations of some of Zoraida's works (Mexican).  Most of these consulted historians consulted documents in Texan and Mexican archives (and often US and British as well).  The histories I have read have been consistent that the Texians were offered only an unconditional surrender, NOT a parole (go free if promise not to take up arms again).  The only source I know of that states otherwise is Fowler's book.  Do any other sources corroborate that claim (especially Spanish-language sources, since I can't read those)? Karanacs (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a batch of books that I have placed holds on at my local library. Several are in Spanish and some in English.  One deals with the Irish colony in Texas (San Paticio) and how the Catholic religion helped form a bond with Tejanos and sympathy for Mexico during the Texan Revolution; another one is Tornel and Santa Anna : the writer and the caudillo, Mexico, 1795-1853 / (2000) by Fowler; With Santa Anna in Texas : a personal narrative of the revolution; Santa Anna:  A curse upon Mexico; and Santa Anna : aurora y ocaso de un comediante (dawn and twilight of a comedian) (1959), I'm really looking forward to reading this last one...  And just for fun:  Santa Anna's Mexican army. And my old standbys:  An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States and Los derechos históricos de México sobre el territorio de los Estados Unidos:  Génesis de un imperio neocolonial by Juan José Mateos Santillán.  Also, I reserved an old Mexican book all about Coahuila y Tejas  I can't speak to the claim in Spanish books, as I haven't consulted those sources in depth...


 * MiztuhX (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Santa Anna and this article aside, I believe you are referring to the (Irish) Power and Hewetson colony. We have James Power (empresario) and James Hewetson, but no article on the colony itself. Consider this post a nudge for you to write one.  Also, there is Carlos de la Garza (Texas) related to it, and I wrote this one.  Feel free to add other insight to that article if you have sourcing for it. — Maile  (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the book and link: Land!: Irish Pioneers in Mexican and Revolutionary Texas, specifically empresarios John McMullen, James McGloin, James Power, and James Hewetson.    "Several attempts had been made to purchase it (Texas by U.S.), but the Mexican government preferred to retain it and populate the country with [Irish, Catholic] settlers against [Protestant] American expansionism." p.109  Good source for the background section of Battle of Alamo which should also touch upon the role of religion in the lead up to the battle and how it influenced the taking of sides...  And, yeah, it would be a good source for the other article, too.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Santa Anna: A Curse Upon Mexico" (2002) (part of Brassey's Military Profiles series) by Robert L. Scheina is another source that specifically references the investment phase of the Battle of the Alamo and Santa Anna's position that Travis and Bowie's refusal to surrender sealed their own fate.


 * On p.33, Scheina states: "When Houston pressed Santa Anna concerning his role in the death of the defenders of the Alamo, Santa Anna replied that the defenders themselves chose to fight to the death, which bore some truth."


 * From the dust jacket: "Robert L. Scheina, Ph.D., is a professor of history at the National Defense University and a leading authority on Latin American military history.  He has published four other books, including Latin America:  A Naval History, 1810-1987, the seminal work on the subject, etc.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's another source: "The Life of Sam Houston" (1860) by  Charles Edwards Lester.  On p. 147: "You must be aware that I was justified in my course by the usages of war.  I had summoned a surrender, and they had refused.  The place was then taken by storm, and the usages of war justified the slaughter of the vanquished."


 * I have checked a couple of other Sam Houston biographies and this scene seems to be pretty standard, but not all describe it similarly. However, this source might be one of the earliest depictions in book form...


 * MiztuhX (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Next up, a 2-volume set in Spanish, Editorial, Porrúa, S.A., printed in Mexico: "Coahuila y Texas:  Desde la consumación de la independencia hasta el tratado de paz de Guadalupe Hidalgo," 1979, 2nd Edition, by Vito Alessio Robles, a reissue of the 1st edition, 1945.  Full quote and footnote is in Spanish but will translate shortly.  For your peace of mind, try running through Google translator.  I'm sure you'll recognize the context, figures, and quotes.


 * From volume 2, p.109: "Además, dice Santa Anna que el asalto fue decidido en un consejo de guerra, pero que antes de emprenderlo envió al coronel Juan Nepomuceno Almonte a El Alamo con el ofrecimiento del respeto a la vida de todos los que se rindieran entregando sus armas y que juraran retirarse sin volver a pelear contra México.  Travis contestó que estudiaría la proposición junto con sus compañeros para hacer saber la decisión al jefe de los sitiadores en caso de aceptarla, y que en caso contrario ellos reanudarían el fuego a una hora determinada.  'Ellos, agrega Santa Anna, se decidieron por el último extremo y esta su decisión irrevocable fue la que selló su suerte.'" *


 * (*footnote): Castañeda, "The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution," págs. 13-14.  El mismo Santa Anna, en "Mi Historia Militar y Política, México, 1905, en el tomo II de "Documentos inéditos o muy raros para la Historia de México" publicados por Genaro García y Carlos Pereyra, pág.34, dice:  "Los filibusteros que creían que los soldados mexicanos no volverían a Texas, sorprendiéronse mucho al avistarnos y corrían despavoridos a la fortaleza del Álamo (obra sólida de los españoles).  En ese día la fortaleza tenía montadas diez y ocho piezas de diferentes calibres y una guarnición de seiscientos hombres, cuyo comandante llamábase N. Travis, de gran nombradía entre los filibusteros.  A las intimaciones que se le hicieron contestó siempre:  que antes de rendir la fortaleza a los mexicanos preferían sus subordinados morir.  El llamado general Samuel Houston, en una carta que se le interceptó, decía al famoso Travis:  "Ánimo y sostenerse a todo trance, pues yo, camino en su auxilio con dos mil hermosos hombres y ocho cañones bien servidos."  Noticia, adquirida tan oportunamente, no era posible desaprovecharla; dispuse luego el asalto que no convenía prolongar un día más..."


 * MiztuhX (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My approximate translation, I am not an expert (assisted by Google Translation, and wordreference.com and edited by myself without referring to original quotes in English):


 * "Coahuila and Texas: From the Consummation of Independence to the Peace Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo" 1979, 2nd Edition, (re-issue of 1945, 1st edition), 2-volume set, by Vito Alessio Robles.


 * From Volume 2, p. 109: "In addition, Santa Anna says that the assault was decided in a war counsel, but before undertaking it, he sent Colonel Juan Nepomuceno Almonte to the Alamo with the offer to respect the lives of all who would surrender, turn in their weapons and pledge to withdraw and not fight against Mexico again. Travis replied that he and his companions would study the proposal and inform him of the decision taken by the leader of the defenders in case it were acceptable, but otherwise they would resume fire at a certain time. 'They, added Santa Anna, decided on the last point and their irrevocable decision sealed their fate.' "*


 * (* Footnote): Castaneda, "The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution," pp. 13-14. Santa Anna himself, "My Military History and Politics," Mexico, 1905, in Volume II of "Unpublished documents or very rare for the History of Mexico" published by Genaro Garcia and Carlos Pereyra, p.34, says: "The freebooters who believed that Mexican soldiers would not return to Texas, much to their surprise, ran in terror to the stronghold of the Alamo (a solid construction by the Spanish). On that day the fortress was mounted with eighteen pieces of different sizes and a garrison of six hundred men, whose commander was named N. Travis, of great renown among the filibusters.  On this point, he always answered:  he preferred that his men die rather than surrender the fortress to the Mexicans. General Samuel Houston stated, in a letter that was intercepted, to the famous Travis: "Courage and hold on at all costs, for I am on the way to your aid with two thousand courageous men and eight cannons."  This information, acquired so opportunely, was not possible to pass up; I initiated the assault that could not be delayed even one more day...


 * MiztuhX (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An edited translation of volume II, chapters 1-7, published in 1950, a thesis by David Glenn Hunt, appears to be available at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. The above quote would be included in this edition, as it is taken from p.109 of chapter 7 of volume II. The title of chapter 7 is "The Capture of the Alamo."


 * MiztuhX (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Santa Anna of Mexico book
I am going to thoroughly look at Chapter 8 The Warrior President 1835-1837, and make notes on this subpage I just created. One thing occurs to me, is that if we go by Santa Anna's account, neither David Crockett nor anyone else surrendered. You'd think Santa Anna would have mentioned a group surrendering after the attack began. Crockett is not mentioned in the entire book, but just about everybody gets at least a passing mention. José Enrique de la Peña whose alleged account created that controversy, is not a source of this book. Santa Anna's account of his flight at the Battle of San Jacinto, and his later capture, are also slightly different. I'll jot the notes on the sub page as I go through it. — Maile (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are good points you make. If you don't mind, I'm going to go through the book again and jot some notes to your page and discuss, if that's okay...MiztuhX (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do. In page order, if you don't mind. — Maile  (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-inclusion of book misrepresents
The non-inclusion (rejection) of Lord's The Time to Stand (1961) in Investment results in a misrepresentation of both Texian and Mexican sides by Wikipedia editor(s) that results in 2 very different depictions. Many of the details provided by Lord have been jettisoned, resulting in a section that, despite the availability of scholarly research (Lord's book is in their own bibliography, no less!), apparently strived mightily to be biased– to both sides.

Anyhow, as the bibliography books I have ordered from my local library begin trickling in, I'm checking the footnotes for accuracy and NPOV issues.

Although Lord's book is listed as a reference, the details of his version of the investment (and the exchange b/w Mexican and Texian forces) seem to have been passed over by a past editor(s). As a result, this section skews in favor of the Texian–and against the Mexican–side. This seems to have been an apparent bias by a previous editor(s) in his or her selection of material, and not by Lord, at least, because he seems to be accurate when it comes to historical details, although the text is hindered by his use of Mexican stereotypes...

1. In response to the Mexican army's raising of the red flag, the Texan side fired its cannon.

On pp.101-102, Lord states: "In the Alamo word spread that the Mexicans had sounded a parley just before the cannon shot, and Bowie began wondering about the wisdom of defiance if there really was a chance of negotiation.  Seizing the first paper in sight–page eight of an ordinary child's copybook–he dashed off a note to the Mexicans.  He explained, almost apologetically, that the garrison had fired before hearing that the Mexicans wanted a truce...now he was sending his aide 'Benito' Jameson to find out if this was really so.

"If Bowie was conciliatory, he still was determined. After ending the note with the salutation 'God and the Mexican Federation,' he suddenly crossed it out and wrote instead, 'God and Texas.'  On this most basic of issues, Jim Bowie too was committed to independence."

Nice NPOV passage by Lord which incorporates details from both sides. The Mexican side sounded a parley, which is not mentioned in the article. Bowie expresses our shared humanity in this moment, his ambivalence, (the belief by both sides in a war that God is on our side), and his determination to fight and survive. Also, this line contradicts the article in that the latter states that Travis ordered the cannon blast, while the former, in Bowie's own words, states it was the garrison that had fired, and does not refer to Travis by name...

The article, as currently written, despite noting the disagreement b/w Travis and Bowie, gives the impression that their actions were, for the most part, deliberate and unwavering. Lord disproves this.

2. Santa Anna refused to receive Jameson and was informed by Batrés of their only recourse.

On pp.102 and 104, Lord states: "He [Jameson] was no sooner gone than another emissary emerged from the Alamo:  this time Albert Martin, speaking for William Barret Travis.  No one ever knew (italics mine) why separate representatives came from each of the fort's co-commanders.  Juan Seguin, in the Alamo at the time, later said that Travis wanted no truck with the Mexicans...that he was furious when Bowie sent Jameson without consulting him.  But this can only be half-right (italics mine), for Travis too got in touch with the enemy.  It seems more likely that Travis was indeed angry with Bowie, but not so much with making his overture as for breaking their agreement to do everything together.  Hence–in a gesture typical of this touchy, sensitive man–Travis' own emissary appeared under his own flag of truce."

Lord's passage is more insightful, revelatory, and rich with regards to the psychological state of mind--motivation, character, ambivalence, confusion, anger--of the Texian leaders--establishing at the outset that no one ever knew exactly why this happened, and, intuitively, that what follows is conjecture... Much of this nuanced detail is currently lacking in the article.

'''3. Lord continues with his narration re: this extensive parley. This section also sheds light on the admissibility of the Santa Anna quote which we have been discussing:'''

On p.104: "Martin walked to the river...met the smooth-as-syrup Colonel Almonte on the small footbridge just above Potrero Street.  He explained that he was speaking for Travis, that if Almonte wanted to talk over matters, Travis would receive him 'with much pleasure.'

"Officially, Almonte explained that 'it did not become the Mexican government to make any propositions through me'...that he was there only to listen. Unofficially, he apparently stressed that the Texans' only hope was to surrender; but if they did lay down their arms–promising never to take them up again–their lives and property would be spared. (italics mine)  After an hour's talk, Martin said he would return with Travis if the Texans agreed to the Mexican terms; otherwise they would resume fire.

"Martin trudged back to the Alamo, and the reply came in the form of another shattering blast from the big-18 pounder. As Travis tersely reported in a message to Houston, "I answered them with a cannon shot."

Here, what is intriguing is that Travis offered to receive Almonte at the Alamo and that Almonte offered them parole.

Now, is more evidence required, or can we begin discussing the best way to integrate the Santa Anna quote into the investment?

MiztuhX (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lord's book is over 50 years old. Given the sheer number of scholarly works published since then, it is inappropriate to use it here (and I think it needs to be removed from the article completely).  Yes, many other historians do cite Lord in their footnotes, but they have also consulted archives that were not available to Lord.  The more recent historians have been able to put information into a context that was unavailable to Lord, Tinkle, and other noted historians of earlier decades.  Any book before about 1990 should  be used sparingly if at all. It's based on extremely outdated research. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason I cited Lord was due to the fact that in the Sources section of your proposed revision of the article, you stated with regards to Lord: "Replace unless used only for quotations from original sources. This is woefully out of date. Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So, I provided the Santa Anna quote from Lord's book. Now that you have seen the quote, you "think it needs to be removed from the article completely. (italics mine)  Every time that you change your criteria for inclusion of the quote, it makes one suspicious of your motives and/or agenda.


 * In Lord's defense, recall that he graduated from Princeton University and held a law degree from Yale University, as well ::as an editor-in-chief and a best-selling historical writer of his time. He was also an experienced researcher.


 * At any rate, here is a summary of the sources I have provided for the Santa Anna quote within the context of the investment that you have asked for but oddly refuse to accept:


 * The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution by the Chief Mexican Participants (1836), reissued in 1971, by Carlos E. Castañeda


 * The Life of Sam Houston (1860) by Charles Edwards Lester,


 * Unpublished documents or very rare for the History of Mexico (1905) published by Genaro Garcia and Carlos Pereyra


 * Coahuila y Texas: Desde la consumación de la independencia hasta el tratado de paz de Guadalupe Hidalgo (1979, 2nd Edition) by Vito Alessio Robles, (a reissue of the 1st edition, 1945) printed in Mexico (Coahuila and Texas: From the Consummation of Independence to the Peace Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo)


 * A Time to Stand (1961) by Walter Lord


 * Santa Anna: A Curse Upon Mexico (2002) by Robert L. Scheina


 * The Alamo Reader, A Study in History (2003) by Todd Hansen''


 * Santa Anna of Mexico (2009) by Will Fowler


 * I am sure there are many more, but I think I have established beyond a shadow of a doubt the importance of the Santa Anna quote in the context of the intervention, and I call on other editors to voice their opinion before taking the matter to WP:DRR.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You gain nothing by attacking other editors' motives.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Castaneda's book is translations of primary sources (I have this book at home). Garcia and Pereya appears to be primary sources. An 1860 history is most certainly inappropriate. A reprint of a 1945 book is out of date. A 1961 book is out of date. That leaves us with two biographies of Santa Anna and a book by Todd Hansen. We know that Fowler's book relies solely on (or, at least, footnotes only) Santa Anna's writing and does not appear to put those words in proper historical context. Do Scheina's and Henson's book cite other sources for the investment or is it, again, solely based on Santa Anna's writings? That's the core of this particular issue - that Santa Anna could write whatever he wanted but that doesn't make his writings the truth. Good research takes into account his writings, those of other Mexicans involved, and those of the Texians involved and balances the multitude of motives and opinions and accusations to try to figure out what is most probably the truth. I fully accept that Fowler's or Scheina's works would be great sources for the article on Santa Anna. I'm unconvinced they are good sources for this particular battle. Karanacs (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation
I think the current section layout is sufficient, so let's take this section by section and discuss potential changes.

Background

 * should we mention some of the other reasons Mexico suspicious of Texians - 3+ yeas of unrest over taxes and slavery?
 * Probably so. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * should Army of Operations info be here or moved down to prelude?
 * Prelude. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * mention Tornel Decree by name
 * Would be nice if we had an article for it if mentioned by name. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * should we refer to Zacatecas and the small number of troops in Texas before Oct 1835 + why Cos was there?
 * Yes. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Should we move up the description of the fort to when we are talking about Cos and the siege of Bexar?
 * I think it's fine where it is. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Amend the sentence on 4 men have charge of the Texian army - I think more focus on sheer chaos (volunteer vs regular army?)
 * For sure. Although Houston is not the focal point here, I'm surprised he actually got as far as San Jacinto. I think the chaos might explain why this battle happened, when Houston told them to get out and blow it up. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Prelude to battle

 * "Houston could not spare the number of men necessary to mount a successful defense" - perhaps explain why. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Siege:Investment

 * Tejano defenders in the Alamo, including those who got permission to leave and move their families from Bexar as the Mexican army approached. Seguin should be mentioned by name. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a question on whether Travis and Bowie meant to fire the cannon?

Siege:Assault preparations

 * Is line in the sand legend put in proper context? Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Final assault: Interior

 * Need to be Bowie's death in proper context - the died in bed tale is not widely believed anymore Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath: Casualties

 * Crockett's death - we tilt too much toward one side. Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The obstinancy of Travis and his soldiers was the cause of the death of the whole of them, for not one would surrender." — Maile (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "The ashes were left where they fell until February 1837, when Juan Seguín returned to Béxar to examine the remains" - the first time we see Seguin's name, and we wonder where he returned from. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh my, that's sad. I'll add that in. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath: Impact

 * Immediate impact, from Scott, p 129 "In fact, the Alamo stirred pity but little else among most Texans. A part of this apparent apathy can be traced to the fact that virtually all of the men who died at the Alamo were outsiders"—men from the United States fighting men from Mexico City Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Alamo Sourcebook 1836 is a children's book
The next book in the bibliography I would like to discuss is Alamo Sourcebook 1836 (1998) by Tim J. & Terry S. Todish, with illustrations by Ted Spring. This book has a prominent place in the investment section with 4 references. In fact, the Todish, et. al book makes up a very large portion of the entire article: 63 references, overall, and 6 notes.

Remember, all the books in the bibliography passed strenuous peer reviews when Karanacs (and other editors) worked on and nominated this article to become FA from 2008-2010.

So, on pp.40-41, sure enough, as Karanacs has stated, Todish, et.al's account of the the investment proceeds along without a mention of the Santa Anna quote. In these two pages, Todish, et.al has in-line references to Lord, A Time to Stand and Chariton, 100 Days to document their narrative.

Todish, et.al follows Lord's lead: parley by Mexican army (p.40); Santa Anna rebuffs Jameson (p.40); not clear why a second envoy was sent out (p.41); offer by Martin to Almonte to return to Alamo and talk with Travis (p.41)-- all these details by Lord are accepted by Todish, et.al but are oddly not included in the article, thus posing a POV problem because the article does not accurately represent the details taken by Todish, et.al from Lord.

Also, in the article, this passage: "Both emissaries met with Colonel Juan Almonte and José Bartres. According to Almonte, the Texians asked for an honorable surrender but were informed that any surrender must be unconditional" is not supported by footnote 49 (attributed to Todish, et.al, pp.40-41). The phrase "any surrender must be unconditional" does not appear in the text cited. Instead, we have Bartre's exact reply to Jameson's request for an honorable surrender as: "I reply to you, according to the order of His Excellency, that the Mexican army cannot come to terms under any conditions with rebellious foreigners to whom there is no recourse left, if they wish to save their lives, than to place themselves immediately at the disposal of the Supreme Government from whom alone they may expect clemency after some considerations."

"Clemency after some considerations" is changed to "any surrender must be unconditional" not by Todish, et.al, who doesn't mark this distinction. Instead, the phrase "Any surrender must be unconditional" seems to have been created just for purposes of the article. Footnote 49 does not support. I propose this line be amended to accurately reflect the text, as Todish, et.al do not take a position after the emissaries met with their counterparts.

Todish, et.al do not mention Travis and Bowie then firing the cannon in response. It is interesting to note that at this point, the article in footnote 52 switches to another source, Edmonson, as a way to manipulate the narrative. From my viewpoint, the article, as written, is just picking scenes at random with no fidelity to its sources.

On the other hand, on p.49, a new source for the Santa Anna quote is presented: "Rumors were circulating that the Texians were considering surrender.  In his interview with The San Antonio Express, Enrique Esparza claimed that 'Santa Anna had offered to let the Americans go with their lives if they would surrender, but the Mexicans would be treated as rebels.'" (Esparza:  The San Antonio Express, March 7, 1905)

We can add this to the growing list of sources that support the inclusion of the Santa Anna quote in the WP article.

But this book also has more surprises. Turns out it is considered a children's book. The academic preparation of the authors is the following: Tim Todish has a bachelor's degree in management from Michigan State University. Terry Todish is Tim's younger brother and has a history degree from Aquinas College. Ted M. Spring has no academic background listed.

The sources that Todish, et.al cite to support their investment narrative is the aforementioned Walter Lord and Wallace O. Chariton. As we all know, the former had superlative academic credentials, while the latter is a noted children's author, with such titles as Rainy Days in Texas Funbook and This Dog'll Hunt to his credit. Hardly a scholarly source to hang one's hat on when it comes to substantiating one's claims in the investment.

Karanacs, I'm positive, is aware of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But in this article, not only is Lord's inclusion of the Santa Anna quote suppressed, it also cites a children's book to support a biased claim to the contrary.

One must wonder how this book was selected in the first place, and how it passed peer review to FA... In the past 5 1/2 years, no one has bothered to point out this egregious mistake.

It seems that the more books on this article's bibliography I review, the more I suspect that the implications here go beyond just the bias on the Santa Anna quote to just basic questions of competence.

Would it be unreasonable to propose that the Todish, et.al book and references be deleted immediately for violation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, especially in light of this article being pushed as an FA as the best that WP has to offer, which it certainly is not!

Really, it is striking to me the degree to which the sources have been manipulated to present a biased claim and to suppress another view.

I keep pressing for the inclusion of the Santa Anna quote. I ask for input from other editors before going to WP:DRR.

MiztuhX (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a children's book; I'm not sure where you got that. If you'll notice in my beginning analysis of sources above, I think Todish ought to be limited.  I am not understanding why this particular quote is so important to you that we are spending so much effort discussing it.  I would like to systematically examine the article and read and incorporate some of the newer scholarship (again, see above).  I've also started a section to evaluate the article and see where it might need more work.    You've ignored both of those sections and repeated invitations to participate and instead are focusing on ONE sentence.  That one sentence does not make the entire article POV.  It doesn't even make the entire section POV.


 * If you feel that strongly about it, put the quote in the appropriate place in the Evaluation section above. I think the best approach is for us to read the newer sources (and feel free to add more sources to the section above), enter the info into the Evaluation section above, and then analyze one section at a time.  We'll have a MUCH greater likelihood of achieving a better article than if we argue ad nauseum over one sentence at a time.   and I will continue working whether or not you wish to participate, but I highly encourage you to either help or stop the disruption. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Then, you should have no problem adding the quote now and then revising at a later point, since like you say, it doesn't really matter. The reason the quote is important (as I stated in my first post) was to bring balance to the Mexican side.  I brought up this discussion before you and Maile decided to begin a revamp of the article.  As such, I stated that I would like this issue to be addressed before I made my decision on whether or not to contribute to this new effort, as a way of "testing the water" and to lobby for edits that were deemed important, (unlike in the past, when they may have been arbitrarily passed up).  The reason why so much time is being spent on one sentence is your continued rejection of valid and diverse sources that call for the quote's inclusion in the investment, and your decision to follow your own agenda and timetable.  I also see that my attempt at seeking consensus has been ignored.  Also, I have not ignored the invitations, as I have stated that I wished to see this issue resolved before going any further in order to avoid logjams such as this one.  So, I suggest we work on incorporating the quote in the investment section of the article (and not in Evaluation section), and then moving on to the rest of the article, since my concern preceded working on a new version of the article.


 * Furthermore, I disagree with your stance on the superiority of newer sources. Michael Hogan in "The Irish Soldiers of Mexico" (1997) states in his introduction that Justin Smith's two-volume history, "The War with Mexico" written in 1919 to be the most comprehensive, (although it has a heavy U.S. bias).  He also notes that "not much Mexican material has passed into the public domain since Justin Smith wrote his two volume history of the Mexican War in 1919. Indeed many sources available to him are not available today"... since military records in the Mexican National Defense Archive are closed virtually to all civilian historians, Mexican or foreign.  Thus, this view puts into doubt your position that newer research is preferable to the old, while also affirming the validity of the Santa Anna quote.


 * Finally, your ultimatum was mildly amusing.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for a compilation of solid facts about the Alamo, including illustrations of weapons, apparel and equipment of soldiers on both sides, along with maps and drawings of buildings and fortifications, you can find much of it in Alamo Sourcebook 1836. The artist, Ted Spring, is a specialist in historic uniforms and military paraphernalia. Brothers Timothy and Terrence Todish have included an account of the siege and battle of Bexar in 1835 San Antonio, and a day-to-day report of the Alamo battle, together with a chronology and weather log of the Texas Revolution. The 8-1/2 x 11 inch book is very well indexed and provides an extensive bibliography plus listings of other sources. Personally, I've found the book invaluable for other articles of Texas history. I have not been a child for a very long time. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Maile. The reason I stated that the Todish, et.al book was a children's book was due to its being stamped and shelved in the Children's Literature Department by my local library.  Also, the authors do not have any substantial academic preparation beyond bachelor's degrees.  Finally, Bob Durham, writes in his review, that "the book [made him] look like an expert in front of a schoolroom full of highly intelligent 5th graders."


 * MiztuhX (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus for Santa Anna Quote
Here is my attempt at consensus:

By late afternoon Béxar was occupied by about 1,500 Mexican soldiers.[50] When the Mexican troops raised a red flag signifying no quarter, Travis responded with a blast from the Alamo's largest cannon.[51] Believing that the Mexican forces had offered a parley and that Travis had acted hastily, Bowie sent Jameson to meet with Santa Anna, who rebuffed him.[49] Travis, for his part, was angered that Bowie had acted unilaterally and sent his own representative, Captain Albert Martin.[52] Both emissaries met with Colonel Juan Almonte and José Bartres. According to Almonte, the Texians asked for an honorable surrender, but Bartres informed them that if they wished to save their lives they would have to place themselves at the disposal of the government from whom they may expect clemency.[49] On viewing this as an offer of unconditional surrender, Bowie and Travis mutually agreed to fire the cannon again[52][Note 9]

Note: Sources conflict on whether a parole or unconditional surrender were offered during the parley. Fowler and Scheina note that Santa Anna made the offer, while Lord notes Almonte made the offer. In an interview with the San Antonio Express in 1905, Juan Álvarez confirmed the offer by Santa Anna. Other historians flatly reject this and state only an unconditional surrender was offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiztuhX (talk • contribs) 07:21, May 6, 2015‎


 * Please sign your talk page posts, and please read talk page guidelines and refrain from excessively long talk page sections and excessive markup on talk pages-- they make it a mess for reading and editing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that some time has passed by, I would like to know if editors are ready now to implement the change I had previously proposed above.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Perjorative language in the Intro
This isnt very Wiki like. "Santa Anna's cruelty during the battle"... "Defenders unable to reach these points were slain by the Mexican cavalry as they attempted to escape"....After all it was a war. They were all (almost all) combatants. Language should be toned down. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is "Wiki like" in describing the brutality of war? "After all it was a war..." sounds like every excuse given by anyone when brought up on charges of cruelty during war. "Defenders unable to reach these points were slain by the Mexican cavalry as they attempted to escape".  It happened that way.  What would you suggest as an alternative wording to describe the exact same scenario?  Santa Anna was cruel.  We might as well say he was.— Maile  (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging  I agree that the article as currently written is not NPOV.  Mislabeling Santa Anna as "cruel" suits the purposes of Texian propaganda, and, as such, does not belong in an encyclopedic WP article.  The fact of the matter is that Santa Anna was acting by the letter of the law which called for the execution of pirates (The Tornell Decree, 30 December 1835), which the rebels of the Alamo were labelled as.  More than anything, to Santa Anna, the Alamo was more of a nuisance, an old, decaying fort that gave no chance for glory, but needed to be attended to.  I believe there is a quote somewhere where he even states that the lives of his own soldiers were unimportant.  Santa Anna's goal was to achieve spectacular glory in battles against Houston.  According to the Mexican point of view, a ragtag bunch of filibusters and mercenaries holed up in an old fortress surrounded by superior Mexican forces did not fit the bill.


 * So, this was not cruelty, but a reflection of his social class (criollo), military standing (presidente-general), and intense desire, above all else, to achieve decorations in a spectacular victory. Of course, he committed grave tactical errors and grossly underestimated the resolve of the rebels.  But, nonetheless, the whole affair was a victory for Mexico that was concluded in 1 1/2 hours and was celebrated both in the United States (see Fowler, p.182) and in Mexico.


 * If the article insists on describing Santa Anna as "cruel," then Houston should be labelled as "cruel" for not sending reinforcements, and Bowie should also be called "cruel" for insisting on the defenders mounting a defense in which they were hopelessly outnumbered. Or Houston being "cruel" for his surprise attack on Mexican soldiers in San Jacinto.  Give me a break.  This is war!  Jeff Long in "Duel of Eagles" (1990) calls Bowie "a slave trader" (pp. 29-30) and both Bowie and Houston "notorious alcoholics." (p.126)  But none of these terms are fitting for this article, so why does Santa Anna get the short end of the stick?


 * Another instance of a POV problem is last sentence of the Intro: "Buoyed by a desire for revenge, the Texians defeated the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, on April 21, 1836, ending the revolution."  The Texians' surprise attack at San Jacinto was a bloodcurdling "slaughter" of the Mexicans.  They didn't just "defeat" them.  Again, neutral terms are used for the Texians but not for the Mexicans, for example, "Defenders unable to reach these points were slain by the Mexican cavalry as they attempted to escape."  "Slain" works for the Mexican soldiers at the Alamo, but not for Texian soldiers in San Jacinto.  Yes, the language needs to be toned down, when it paints the Mexicans as villains, especially since it is toned down for the Texians.


 * Also, in the Infobox, under "Casualties and Losses," the Mexican side notes "400-600 killed and wounded," but the Republic of Texas side just notes "182-257" with no qualifiers, the same should be repeated: "182-257 killed and wounded" to achieve a NPOV.


 * MiztuhX (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the infobox text is not NPOV. 182-257 Texians were killed (historians are still working on the exact number).  When the battle ended, there were no Texian wounded.  I can add "killed" to that number, but not "killed and wounded" Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Santa Anna's cruelty" is referring to the perceptions of the people living in North America at that time.


 * Then, the article should state with this qualifier, "According to people living in North America at that time..," that way all who read it are aware of the bias. By the way, Mexico and Mexicans are also people living in North America, and many of them disagreed.


 * MANY Mexicans - including Urrea - agreed that the behavior was cruel.
 * Yes, and there were many Mexicans who not only disagreed but praised Santa Anna for his actions at the Alamo and felt that the Texians got what they deserved. In short, people everywhere  had opposing views of him:  in Texas, United States, and Mexico.  It all depends on the focus of the historian, so in order for this to be NPOV, the article should reference these multiple viewpoints advocated by different historians, or stick to a neutral tone, for example, removing "cruelty" as a descriptor for Santa Anna, since this word could easily be used to refer to Travis, et.al. by the Mexicans or U.S. abolitionists, or Tejanos, etc.


 * Whether or not Santa Anna was "exonerated" later is moot.
 * Yes, I most definitely agree. What we as editors imho should be looking for are books where historians present primary documents and primary participants who refer to Santa Anna as "cruel" during the context of the Siege and Fall of the Alamo.  If one wants to include the memoir of somebody looking back on the event, and then voicing an opinion on the subject, then it should be duly noted, and not presented in such a way as to make readers believe that the source is contemporaneous.


 * If Santa Anna was viewed as "cruel," then let's find a letter or document written in that arena by Bowie, Travis, Jameson, Martin, or of any of Santa Anna's field generals, who had direct contact with him, saying that he was "cruel." But I suspect you will find that the principal participants did not refer to Santa Anna as "cruel."  When Bartres informed Green that surrender would have to be unconditional, did Bartres or Travis say, "Oh, he is so cruel."  When Santa Anna consistently sounded the call of degüello, is there any evidence that the Alamo defenders stated in response, "Oh, he is so cruel," or did they batten down the hatches and prepare to fight?


 * When Santa Anna conducted his war council, did any of his field generals call him "cruel" to his face while discussing their battle plans? No, because they knew that this was war, and they respected the chain of command, like good soldiers.  They knew that this battle was to the death--for both sides, as Santa Anna and his Mexican troops experienced at San Jacinto.  Texian soldiers were just as cruel and as vicious as the Mexican soldiers because it was war.  So, if the word is to be used, then one should be consistent and apply it to all warriors...or none at all.


 * Moreover, I think to define Santa Anna as "cruel," in one sense, cheapens the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders and cheapens their "dying for their country" rhetoric, as they never used such a term to describe Santa Anna. They knew he meant business...and so did they.  Not only were they fighting for land, riches, their families, freedom, etc., they were also fighting for the destinies of two countries.  So, to unilaterally refer to one party as "cruel" and the other, by default, as "not cruel" is simplistic revisionism that really serves no purpose now in this day and age.  What does one gain by putting words into the mouths of the primary participants which they did not utter...?  It's an insult to their memory.


 * Here is a suggestion for arriving at a NPOV tone. The article states that "Santa Anna's cruelty during the battle inspired many Texians..."  Instead of using the word "cruelty," why not state the actions that Santa Anna committed during the battle that caused some observers to label him as "cruel?"  I haven't found any of the primary participants using the word "cruel."  I'm sure newspaper accounts in Texas, the U.S. and Mexico exaggerated the battle and players for their own purposes, but what about the participants...?


 * Actions speak louder than words. In my research, I found that during the battle, Santa Anna was engaged in directing his troops, showing bravery, exposing himself to enemy fire, and, most importantly, following his battle plans (death to the pirates, no survivors, degüello, which he announced ad naseum to the enemy beforehand), with the ultimate outcome being victory.  How is that "cruel?"  Maybe you can find something different?  What actions did he take, in comparison to the actions of the leaders of the Alamo, who used their large cannons to kill a whole line of Mexican soldiers in one shot?  That could be viewed as cruel by the Mexican side, but it is not labeled as such, since it is the Texians who are doing it...not NPOV.  The language definitely needs to be toned down to achieve a sense of NPOV, or else the article will become much larger and more unwieldy since many viewpoints will need to be referenced in order to provide proper context for both sides.


 * The Texas Revolution article does describe the Battle of San Jacinto as a slaughter. I'll add a sentence to the body of the article to make that clear. I don't know that this belongs in the lead, as the lead should focus more on this topic. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ready to restart this discussion about either deleting "cruelty" as a descriptor for Santa Anna, or providing a statement that contextualizes the word, referencing how Santa Anna's actions were perceived as "cruel" by some and "courageous" by others. MiztuhX (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mexican Sources
In the past, editors have bemoaned the lack of Mexican academic sources and viewpoints with regards to this subject. I invite editors to add sources in order to evaluate and integrate them into the article for NPOV.


 * Zoraida Vásquez, J. (2010). Colonización de Texas y el mito del Álamo (Colonization of Texas and the Myth of the Alamo). Relatos e historias en México (Accounts and history of Mexico), 23(2), 16-21. (This is an article from a Mexican monthly magazine that deals with Mexican history. Zoraida Vásquez is a professor emeritus and researcher of the College of Mexico. She has been a visiting professor at Austin in Texas, Berkeley in California, and Florencia and Goether University in Frankfurt.)

p.18 - Ignorance attributes the independence of Texas to centralism. The loss of Texas was anticipated with the arrival of colonists from the neighboring country in the process of expansion, and the offer to buy Texas by U.S. minister Joel Poinsett in 1825.

- Disgracefully, the huge border, the distance, and the lack of resources, permitted the violation of Mexican laws by Anglo-American immigrants who were, in their majority, protestant and slave owners.

- The real sources of friction were slavery and the reopening of the ports-customs houses, once the period of tax exemption was over.

p.19 - When Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, colonists found a way to violate Mexican law by drawing up contracts in which slaves were held in penury, allowing them a salary to pay for their freedom. But since they were paid very little, and they were charged for their food and clothing, it was impossible to ever pay off.

p.20 - Speculators and annexationists that had arrived at the end of the 1920s riled up the colonists and manipulated their fears about Mexican anti-slavery to incline them towards declaring their independence. To strengthen their movement and obtain the support of fellow Americans, they made a call to their compatriots to join them in their fight for liberty, offering to pay them with land. Thus, throughout the United States, especially in border states, thousands of recruiting offices were formed that signed up volunteers and gathered weapons and supplies. President Andrew Jackson declared U.S. "neutrality" in a Mexican internal problem, but he did not follow this position to the letter, as various governors interfered and volunteers were not held back at the border, and allowed to enter the dispute. As a result, this dispute became an international war for Mexico.

p.21 - The campaign of General President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, despite the penury of the treasury and the poor organization of troops and supplies, was a success. Many of the "Texan" dead were American filibusters recently arrived, who were classified as a result of the decree of the Mexican Congress of 30 December 1835, as pirates, since they were foreigners resisting the government with arms. This action convinced the Texans to declare their independence on 6 March 1836, a decision they had avoided taking in order to not lose the support of the Mexican Federalists.

- In the end, the Texan "fight for liberty" was just a ruse to further slavery, as stipulated in the Texas Constitution. This was not mentioned previously so as to not lose the support of northerners in the United States who were abolitionists. In this manner, the Texans' declaration of independence inspired by the U.S. was simply a slogan to gain support and achieve annexation. MiztuhX (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * El Alamo, una historia no apta para Hollywood (The Alamo: A Story Not Appropriate for Hollywood) (2012) (Spanish Edition) by Paco Ignacio Taibo.  Here is the link for his History Channel documentary about the Battle of El Alamo (in Spanish/ English).

From the video:

- Only 3 books about the Alamo in Mexican bookstores, a footnote in Mexican history, but literally thousands of not just books, but movies, reenactments, clothing, paraphernalia... How has a resounding defeat been built up in the Texan/American imagination? (Will begin to fill in major points shortly about the video and the book)...MiztuhX (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

From the book:

- Chapter IV: Of the 58 signers of the Declaration of the Independence of Texas, only 2 were originally from Texas: José Navarro and Francisco Ruiz. Then there was: a Yucateco, Lorenzo de Zavala; 4 Europeans (an Englishman, a Spaniard, and Irishman, and a Scottsman); a Canadian; and 50 citizens from the southern states of the United States, among which 11 were from the Carolinas. 86.2% of "Texan" representatives were not Texans, but Americans. MiztuhX (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

- The Texian victory was enshrined in their first Constitution where slavery was legalized, which had previously been prohibited under Mexican law. It permitted Anglo-American immigrants to bring their Black slaves to Texas. When one speaks of the Independence of Texas, one speaks of the triumph of the slave party. Morally, there is no excuse for their practicing one of the most brutal and filthiest of trades in the history of humanity. Many of the Texian heroes were not only slave owners but slave traders. MiztuhX (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss New Edit 01:26, 12 July 2015‎
Hi. This is the space for discussing the new edit on 01:26, 12 July 2015‎. It is my hope to provide a NPOV by inclusion of differing viewpoints on this event. Thanks. MiztuhX (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to offer some viewpoints, start here.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  23:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)