Talk:La Matanza (1910–1920)

Peer Edits from Jay Laetsch
Lead section:

The first part of the lead is good aside from a couple of grammar and vocabulary issues, but the second part is repetitive and never seems to arrive at a main idea. I’m a little confused as to what you are trying to say.

Sentence 2: Mexican Revolution, not hyphenated (goes for the rest of the article)

Sentence 3 “It is estimated … 1848-1928 in which twenty-percent of these lynchings took place in the 1910’s.” is clunky. Consider: “It is estimated … twenty percent of which occurred in the 1910’s.”

Sentence 4 (These acts …) is a run-on. Consider breaking it up into two sentences referring to the past and the present separately. In addition, “were” alone is a weak way to reference the past. Adding “previously” directly after “were” strengthens the notion of the past. Also, “connections” seems to fit better than the second “relation” (The first time, “relation” works well).

Sentence 5 (This period …): “still” is not entirely necessary, and removing it makes the sentence flow better; “hasn’t” stands out as the only contraction in the lead: change it to “has not”; given that a name is provided later, “officially named” might fit better in this sentence “lack of attention towards it” might be better phrased as “lack of attention it has received”

The last section of the lead is disjointed. It makes more logical sense to group the clauses referring to the recent interest by historians together (or remove the later ones entirely: they are redundant) and combine the naming thoughts into one sentence. For example, “While this period of violence towards Mexican ethnics has not been officially named due to the lack of attention it has received, the name of ‘La Matanza of 1915’ has been proposed.”

Leading to Violence: The Mexican Revolution

This section is very repetitive without really saying anything. The first sentence makes a good introduction, but it takes the next three sentences just to mention the fears those events caused. Revolution sparking violence is mentioned three separate times.

Sentence 1: “began into”? Maybe move the mention of migration after the “looking to escape” clause. For example, “… in 1910, Mexican refugees, looking to … revolution, began migrating to Texas, causing …”

After the first sentence, make a connection between it and the rise in violence. The fear that Americans would lose land and control seems to logically stem from the migration, so place them next to one another.

Beyond this, just mention that those fears evolved into violence, including lynchings.

The Lynching of Antonio Rodriguez

Overall, this section has good structure; there are just some grammatical fixes that clear up some ambiguity and make it easier to read.

Sentence 1: Cut out “a little”: it’s too generic. Instead, use “less than a month” (according to the Mexican Revolution Wikipedia page, the Revolution began on November 20, 1910) and remove the comma (otherwise the last part is a fragment).

Include the name of the victim with her description, not a sentence later. (… accused of murdering forty-year-old Effie Greer Henderson, a white woman and the wife of rancher Mr. Lamuel Henderson, on November 2, 1910.) Both sources should be cited but separate sentences for details from separate sources makes reading the article difficult.

Last sentence of first paragraph: “After word of the murder got out, …” “aided Mr. Henderson in searching for answers and the murderer which led (not lead) to …”

Who said that Mrs. Henderson was rude: Rodriguez?, Mr. Henderson?, the mob?

“beaten repeatedly before being tied to a mesquite tree”

“The execution was said to have been attended…” by whom?

Sentence 1 of 3rd paragraph is awkward and makes no grammatical sense. Maybe: “After the lynching, Mexican investigators from San Antonio began an investigation.”

Paragraph 3, Sentence 2: “about”, not “over”, delete “really”, weird phrasing. Maybe split into two sentences and reword the responses to investigators (…about Rodriguez. Many individuals claimed to know nothing about him.)

Parag. 3, Sent. 3: “investigation” rather than “digging”

Parag. 3, Sent. 4: “…investigation came to an end; however…”

Parag. 3, Sent. 5: Maybe a synonym for “asking” would work better than “aimed toward”. It depends on the context, though. “Targeting” or “aimed at” make more grammatical sense, although they imply, as the article does now, that the protests were directly demanding US action.

The Lynching of Antonio Gomez

Parag. 1: Information is too spread out. Maybe: “Antonio Gomez was a 14-year-old Mexican boy and the son of Gabriel and Amelia Gomez. He was lynched for killing a German …”

Parag. 2, Sent. 1: delete “a saloon”, just say “outside the Old Bank Saloon in Thornsdale, TX”

Parag. 2 Sent. 2: “Stevens, annoyed by Gomez’s presence, went outside to encourage him to leave.”

“Then Stevens grabbed … and began to wrestle him. A nearby mob, including Charles … and Young came to watch the confrontation and ridicule Gomez.”

Parag. 3, Sent. 1: “intercepted”, not “intersected”

Parag. 3, Sent. 3: “after which”, not “to which” and repeat Zieschang’s name as the pronoun is indeterminate.

Parag. 4: This paragraph makes the story seem like it’s attempting to be unbiased after presenting one side of the story as true. If the series of events in paragraph 3 is the true case, then simply mention that the other case was the story presented in court (The story presented at the trial was that X, Y, and Z). If it is uncertain what happened, then state the other account as a different, but equally possible, account (Other accounts, including the official court narrative, claim that X, Y, and Z).

Parag. 5, Sent. 1: What elements necessary for lynching? This portion of the sentence is a too broad of a summary for the rest of the paragraph. Just let the paragraph speak for itself.

Sent. 2: “Too young (legally?) for capital punishment”. Also, don’t repeat the age.

McCoy’s plan can be combined into one sentence (McCoy formulated a plan to prevent the lynching involving closing doors, hiding Gomez, and transporting him.) Keep the details but tie them together better.

“The plan fell apart when (not due to) the townspeople discovered…” Then, “soon afterward, a mob”. Don’t repeat anything that was just said or is not a crucial detail right then.

“Meeting McCoy there” is redundant as that is the idea behind a rendezvous point. Start with “on the way there,” “three on foot and one on horseback” (The verbs are unnecessary).

“but”, not “yet”

Remove “multiple times”. It was only twice as the article later states.

The first hanging attempt is unclear as to exactly what is happening.

Maybe, “The body was returned to the family and buried by his father”. “recovered” implies the body was missing.

“Informed him” rather than “told him” and remove “given up”. The sentence works better without that grammatical hitch. Also remove “in” from the next sentence.

“on the same night as Gomez’s lynching”

The Execution of Leon Martinez Jr.

Parag. 1: Don’t repeat information. Try to combine all linked information together (Jr and Sr lived in Toyah, TX, where they worked as X and Y, while Sidra and Miguel lived in Durango).

Parag. 2: Combine first two sentences. “On” rather than “The day of”. The last portion is a run-on. Not necessary to say both Leon Jr and Brown; instead, “saw the two conversing at the store”.

Combine paragraphs 2 and 3 with the adjacent sentences. The two sentences both discuss Brown’s death and flow too seamlessly to be in separate paragraphs.

“As mentioned before” does not fit the tone of the rest of the article, and it is entirely unnecessary (even more so if paragraphs 2 and 3 are combined). Parag. 3 can be expressed in two to three sentences, and the information is presented as disjunct rather than connected.

Parag. 4 could be combined into one sentence, but some of the information is present less than five sentences earlier.

There is no need to introduce negative information such as he did not run or hide. This just delays the information that is important. The discussion of the mob and Martinez’s interactions goes on for too long: the ideas can be expressed quickly in one sentence.

“Not too much time” is an awkward way to phrase “Soon after”

The confession being the only evidence present implies that no record of the day’s events was ever provided, so only one of the cases needs to be said.

Confessions imply guilt. Perhaps “statements” would be more appropriate when referring to both of the reports Martinez gave to the police. Remove “then” from the second sentence. It breaks the story’s flow. Also remove “to which” and insert a period.

Remove the last sentence of paragraph 7 (Throughout this whole…). It adds nothing to the article.

Spellcheck “trial” instead of “trail” in the 6th paragraph from the end. Remove “on the day of the trial”. That is implied by “a few hours before the trial”. The sentence regarding the attorneys would flow better if it was just “The two attorneys assigned to Martinez by Isaacks were George Estes…”

Remove “before 3:30 pm”.

Plan of San Diego

Mostly good, but the details of the plan are disjunct. Combining them into one sentence might help.

Texas Ranger Brutality

This seems like it would be better as a lead-style section for the remaining sub-headings. With that, some of the details present in this section that are currently making the section clunky would be able to fit elsewhere or be removed. Check grammar (like “about” instead of “over”) and try to connect the points of the sentences more closely.

The Murders of Jesus Bazan and Antonio Longoria

“Inclusively” is unnecessary and awkward.

The last sentence is repetitive (as a general rule, summaries should be at the beginning of a section rather than the end).

“What was known” rather than “what is known”

The paragraph covering the two reporting the incident is very disjunct (it doesn’t flow at all). One or two sentences can cover the information without all of the repetition.

The paragraph about Captain Ransom seems to bring information in only after it becomes relevant. The details about his nap and the exact company of troops are unnecessary and his violent tendencies are somewhat implied by the rest of the paragraph, so it doesn’t need to be spelled out explicitly.

The paragraph about the bodies remaining mentions that they were on the road for a long time twice. Just the longer time would need to be mentioned.

Delete “actual” from the last paragraph. It seems unprofessional.

“made no attempt” is unnecessarily repeated. Just a “nor” before the second action would work better.

The last two sentences have a lurching feeling as they are read. They keep bouncing to other ideas and prepositional phrases, making them difficult to understand.

The Porvenir Massacre

This section is very well-developed. The last sentence of the first paragraph seems out of place. It should probably be incorporated into the sentence regarding the selection of the 15 men. Extra phrases such as “however, the violence did not end there” should be avoided as they are not entirely impartial and add unnecessary information. The second paragraph doesn’t seem to be necessary, but if it is included, it could be summed up into one sentence rather than two, which overly separates the ideas.

The Canales Investigation

The last sentence should be fleshed out a little more if the information is available. It seems like there is a story that is being covered up by “a back-and-forth battle”. Other than that, the section is well-written.

Overall, the article seems to be laid out well. There are quite a few places where grammatical fixes could improve and clarify the work, most of which I have tried to point out. The last three sections might work better as subheadings under Texas Ranger Brutality, as was mentioned. Avoid listing out details such as names of those involved in a mob unless they have some other significance, as in the case of Constable McCoy. If sentences discuss the same topic, try to combine them or at least place them next to each other so that ideas stay connected. Also avoid repeating ideas that were well-developed previously. The summaries should be toward the top, with the details following; there should not be a purposefully-written conclusion at the end. This helps to maintain the neutral point of view.

Jay Laetsch (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Edits - Nicholas Polk

Your second sentence add "the" before midst

The Lynching of Antonio Gomez - "on the day of June" could be adjusted to "On June...."

Texas Ranger - the ability "of being" needs to be changed "to be"

The Murders of Jesus Bazan and Antonio Longoria - second sentence "leader" can be change to leaders, "dirt rode" to dirt road"

The Porvenir Massacre - "gun fire" to "gunfire"

Honestly a very solid article! First the title, I would personally incorporate the years 1910-1920 in the bold title since your only covering a decade. Other than minor grammatical issues this is really good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohitsnich (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Pancho Villa
Should not this article mention Pancho Villa and the raids by Mexican rebels into Texas border towns in more detail? It does not seem to be very balanced.Patapsco913 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Dubious
Something seems very dubious. In the Leon Martinez Jr. section, he is said to have been executed three years after every other event described in the paragraph. Can we at least provide an explanation if that's true? UnnamedUser (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)