Talk:Mexican Revolution/Archive 1

This article needs work
Oh dear.. as much as I like all the new info.. it needs a serious copyedit... I'll try to help but it would be nice to get some other people in on it... Sasquatch t|c 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the recent additions read much like an essay and are plagued by weasel words, which don't do much for maintaining a NPOV. Sources are not cited and I fear that parts of it may even be copyvio (as some of the recently created related articles happened to be). Somehow I get the impression all recent additions are part of a school project. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a mess all right. I've restored the first paragraph from 2-1/2 weeks ago, so there is at least the equivalent of a decent stub. - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Split article?
This is a huge topic and could easily spread to several articles. I think the length and the sorry state of affairs is probably keeping people (me included) from helping clean up the mess. I'd suggest trimming the sections on the nature of people and movements (as opposed to the sequence of events involving them) to a bare minimum (moving stuff to the appropriate main article, including pasting it onto the talk page there if you're not up to a merge), adding a section on military history (totally absent), adding links to the post-1917 conflicts (cruzero etc.). Do I hear a second? --Homunq 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked too closely, but its only just over 30K, which is usually a little before where we tend to split unless there is a clear, easy split to make. - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Expert help
I'm not sure why the request for expert help was removed from the article. It seems to have happened somewhere in a long exchange fighting vandalism the last couple of weeks. Was this done on purpose? If so why? - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Imperialism
This is not supported by other statements in the paragraph, the full article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_the_Mexican_Revolution), or the Zimmermann Telegram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram) article. The United States vowed to protect the lives of its citizens by use of its military if necessary. It also used diplomatic pressure in an attempt to solve the problem, as countries that are bordering another country in a civil war are apt to do. Also, a foreign force launched an attack on United States soil, against barracks of the United States military and US civilians. I fail to see how the actions of the US in this context would qualify as imperialism, informal or otherwise. Discuss here if you disagree. OR, provide reasoning and sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.65.71 (talk • contribs) 19 May 2006.


 * The use of the word imperialism is debatable (and might not be the right one). We should first try to define what that word means to you. Again, you should remember that history would be told differently in the US than it would be in Mexico.. Just to give you an example using the three points you just mentioned:


 * First, the US vowed to protect the lives of its citizens. Yet, by welcoming Victoriano Huerta into the embassy for a "private parlour" and morally supporting his coup d'état, the ambassdor was protecting the priviliges of its citizens (mainly oil companies that were threatened by the rced elsewhere, I agree that this article needs sources). As a result of the incident and liberal laws of Madero, the creation of unions and the possibility of nationalization) and not the lives'' of its citizens per se. Mexicans never threatened the lives of the few citizens that lived in Mexican soil at the turn of the 20th century.


 * How was supporting a murderous backstabbing thug like Huerta helping anyone? Huerta could have easily turned on the Americans the way he did Madero. Woodrow Wilson got rid of Henry Lane Wilson as one of his first acts as President. Tubezone 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of using diplomatic pressure if not to help the faction of the revolution that you like? The US did not offer impartial talks and did not act as a mediator, which would be a reasonable way to help a bordering country.


 * Actually, there WERE talks, known as the ABC conferences, that took place in Canada. They were a failure: Carranza was not one to negociate on what he considered principles. Tubezone 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you call a small numbered, independent, loose and poorly armed raid headed by Pancho Villa (who wasn't even part of the government) a "foreign force" that would legitimize an invasion or the attacks to the port of Veracruz? I fail to see how his raids qualify as "foreing forces attaking barracks of the US military" unless, of course you are referring to the Mexicans fighting back the siege of Veracruz. --Alonso 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The occupation of Veracruz predated the Villa raid by two years, by that time, the gringos had departed. Villa himself approved the Veracruz occupation as merely a problem for Huerta.Tubezone 07:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "We should first try to define what that word means to you."


 * Not necessarily. The goal isn't to show that one editor is wrong; the goal is to show that a claim in the article is appropriate (with sources, NPOV, and clear wording).  However, I appreciate your willingness to hear my opinions.


 * "Again, you should remember that history would be told differently in the US than it would be in Mexico."


 * That's fine. If there are appropriate sources from Mexico, translated into English, or sources written from the Mexican point of view, feel free to add them.


 * Also, I think "informal imperialism" could probably considered "weasel words" because the claim is trying to avoid direct confrontation by saying "informal" but still alleging imperialism. If that term is to be used, I think it needs a source and that source should define or describe what "informal imperialism" is.  Also, the article states: "The U.S. decided that they would react to the revolution through intervention only if Mexican military endangered the lives or property of North Americans."  This relates to life, liberty, and property as described by John Locke and Adam Smith.  To call the U.S.'s protecting the lives of its citizens abroad (see events of January 11, 1916), the property rights of its citizens in foreign countries or in the United States, of private citizens or oil companies (however insidious some consider them), "imperialism", seems a inappropriate.


 * "The US did not offer impartial talks and did not act as a mediator, which would be a reasonable way to help a bordering country."


 * Yes, you are right. That course of action would have showed impartiality and would have been A reasonable way to act (and possibly the most reasonable, depending on your POV).  However, impartial "talks" with "mediation" is a relatively new (or at least rare) phenomenon when viewed against thousands of years of written history.  Neighboring countries have supported one side or another, in internal wars and multiple-country wars through alliances, provisions of military supplies, stategic marriages (with royalty), etc., and we would hesitate to label such actions as imperialism (informal or otherwise).


 * "private parlour"


 * I cannot find that quote in any of the articles. Was this from one of the external sources?


 * "Do you call a small numbered, independent, loose and poorly armed raid headed by Pancho Villa...a "foreign force...?"


 * Certainly. This article and this section suggest that, according to most sources, 1500 of Villa's men participated in the raid, which included the murder 17 (or 18) people.  Other sources suggest smaller numbers participated in the raid (although they are in the same ballpark), which I would still consider a "foreign force".  Were they an "army"?  No, and that's why I chose to call them a "foreign force" instead.


 * "(who wasn't even part of the government)"


 * True, he was not a part of the federal government, but he was fighting against the current government, for a place (or power) in that government. Also, was he not the Governor of Chihuahua, a state that borders the United States, starting in 1913?  I'm not sure when the official ending date his for his tenure as provisional governor, but he certainly wielded a lot of military and political influence at the time of the raid.


 * "...that would legitimize an invasion or the attacks to the port of Veracruz"


 * The misunderstanding in the Tampico Affair was on May 9, 1914. This occurred when Mexican soldiers arrested U.S. sailors, including "at least one taken from on board his ship, and thus from U.S. territory" (although sourced elsewhere, I agree that this article needs sources). As a result of the incident and misunderstanding, the United States THEN attacked Veracruz.  The United States occupied Veracruz from April 21, 1914 to November 23, 1914.  Thus, it is not possible for the U.S. to have used Villa's raid a year and a half later as justification for the events in Veracruz, and I am not arguing such a thing either.


 * ""foreing forces attaking barracks of the US military unless, of course you are referring to the Mexicans fighting back the siege of Veracruz."


 * I cannot currently find the wording of "barracks" within Wikipedia, but Pancho Villa did attack a town and the 13th Calvary at Camp Furlong. That was what I meant by "barracks". No, I was clearly not talking about Veracruz. Ufwuct 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, J. Alonso, if you have any sources that you would like to add, please do; this article could use some improvement. I think citations within the text would also be very helpful.  Thanks. Ufwuct 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Something of a mess...
... and recent edits haven't necessarily made it less so. I reverted a few recent problems, but this passage in particlar seems problematic:

"Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Pancho Villa and Venustiano Carranza were all important individuals in the revolution because of the role they played in attaining a stable government in Mexico. All four leaders were important in gaining a sense of what was important to the people of Mexico and what was needed to gain stability and freedom in Mexico."

Whatever one thinks of them, Zapata and Villa do not strike me as particularly "stabilizing" forces. (Previously, and even more oddly, rather than list Zapata, this listed Victoriano Huerta, one of the most roundly hated figures in Mexican history.) But I'm no expert on the Mexican Revolution, and I hesitate to rewrite a paragraph like this that is supposed to establish an overview. Could someone else please take this on? - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What this article should include
This is a huge, huge topic which requires considerable work. I've been afraid to touch it until someone is willing to help... anyone up for it?

Properly I think this should cover a period vaguely beginning towards the end of the Diaz regime, extending to 1930 when the PRI came to power. Basically what I think it needs is:

Graft
 * 1) Discussion of the PorfiriataFUCK YOU.!
 * 2) The various successions - Maderistas, Carrancistas, Obregonistas, etc.
 * 3) The social revolution - Zapata and land reform, efforts at destruction of the hacienda/peonage system, the end of debt slavery
 * 4) The United States response
 * 5) The rise of the PRI
 * 6) The place of the revolution in modern mexican culture?

I am a complete novice on Mexican history but I know good writing and an evenhanded approach. This is neither. It reads like an average high school term paper. You might want to think about starting this article over from scratch. It could be easier than trying to repair it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loris Buccola (talk • contribs).


 * There is nothing like precise criticism that points at concrete issues. And this is nothing like precise criticism that points at concrete issues. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they're saying that the article needs to be refounded. I agree, I think that the outline they give is pretty decent. Though I'd flesh it out at the end - after US response, I'd have: Constitution of 17, Political Succession (rise of PRI), application of constitution of 17 (anticlericism, cristeros, eventual real land reform... briefly), and place of rev in mod cult. So - I'm not able to devote a lot of effort or knowledge to this article, but I'd like to encourage a refounding at Mexican Revolution/Rewrite.--Homunq 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Causes
The causes section is a joke. I mean Diaz was a bad guy, but its blatant POV. Also it seems like it was wqritten by a third grader. 24.94.232.13 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

US intervention
I have completely rewritten this section. Emmawriter 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism
I'm not sure what this looked like before, and I couldn't find the revision that caused it.

Doremus, Anne the thesaurus of anal rapeT. Culture, Politics, and National Identity in Mexican Literature and Film, 1929-1952. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.1.162 (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Date
I'm pretty sure that this anonymous, uncited change from "November 10" to "November 20" as the day of Madero's declaration is, in fact, correct. But does someone have a good citable source for this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The date is correct, and I've added a source. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Magón
I'm surprised Ricardo Flores Magón is not mentioned in this article. (He is in the Spanish version.) I think he should be mentioned somewhere. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Revolution in art
There is no mention of depiction or influence of this revolution in article. What books, poems, films and ... where influenced or made about this revolution? This seems to be an important missing part. Farmanesh (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations, this article would easily qualify as B class if not GA or FA --dashiellx (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NEEDS A TIMELINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.60.6 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dolores Jiménez y Muro
The large, recently added chunk on Dolores Jiménez y Muro that I removed from this article was simply cut-and-paste from the Wikipedia article on the woman herself (right down to a typo). - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph
I removed the new paragraph that was recently added because it concerned the Mexican-American war of 1848, and has no connection with the Revolution of 1910-1920Ramon4 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)ramon4

Inter-Masonic war
I was reading the article Catholicism and Freemasonry, and I saw that some people were insinuating that the conflict was really a power struggle between two different branches of Freemasonry, such as Grand Lodge and Grand Orient. If there is evidence to support this, it ought to be added to the article with appropriate sources. In any case, it would be a good idea to write about the role of Masonry in that turbulent period of Mexico's history. ADM (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where you got that idea? But I think you misunderstood the conversation.  There were indeed several Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in Mexico at the time (I seem to remember one source said there were at least 5 Masonic groups), and most of these different Grand Lodges and Grand Orients did indeed issue statements in support one side or the other during the Revolution; and yes, there were Masons on both sides.  But, I don't think anyone insinuated that the Revolution itself was the result of a Masonic power struggle.  In fact, I would say the influences go the other way... the Revolution resulted in broadening a split in Mexican Freemasonry (because it caused Freemasons to choose sides). Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Women in the revolution
The section on Women in the revolution is the longest of any of the sections. Add to that the Zapatista Women. Of course these are important aspects of the revolution but given the relative length of those section to the others I think this is bordering on UNDUE WEIGHT. Should a new article on this topic be created, with most of the information moved there while this article summarizes the main points and includes a wiki link to the new article?radek (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section is missing
I am not much familiar with Mexican history and I don't know quite well where to start, so I am going to just address the problem here. I think the artcile needs a "Legacy" section. Among other things, it would establish an historical link with the EZLN and the Chiapas conflict; not unlike the article Easter Rising does it with The Troubles and the PIRA. Any thoughts? I would appreciate any help from someone to start the section. Maziotis (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is ABBA?
Why is "fernando" in this articule?


 * Removed, because as far as I know none of ABBA members fought (or were even born) during the Mexican revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.198 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you could stand to sign youight they crossed the rio grande" as Madero's crossing on Nov 20. But there's no evidence ABBA was thinking of that, or even knew about it.  I think I remember in an interview one of them said they weren't thinking of anything in particular--Work permit ([[User talk:Work

infobox
The infobox should be used as a overview. --93.82.1.201 (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing reference
where does this quote come from? "Persecution of the Church, whether or not the clergy enter into the matter, means war, and such a war that the Government can win it only against its own people, through the humiliating, despotic, costly and dangerous support of the United States. Without its religion, Mexico is irretrievably lost." Obviously, it originally came from a Spanish source, which means I would have some difficulty finding as I can't speak or read Spanish. 206.87.4.246 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates
A good place to start would be to add some dates. I am studying for a test right now and looked here for some quick info. I am at a loss as to when it started, when it ended, how many people died, etc. If nobody does it in a week or two, I can research it and add that part in (its finals week). Epachamo 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Francisco I. Madero in 1910, stated that he would be running in the next election against Diaz for leadership of Mexico. In order to ensure Madero did not win, Diaz had him thrown in jail and declared himself the winner. Madero soon escaped and fled for a short period of time to the United States. On November 20th, 1910, Madero issued the Plan de San Luis Potosi, which declared the Diaz’s regime illegal and initiated a revolution against Porfirio Diaz.


 * That is the first paragraph of the MADERO section and it's states that the revolution began on November 20th, 1910 issuing the Plan de San Luis Potosi. This was a class project and hardly ever this group of 15 people ever agreed on anything and one of our concerns is how long the revolution lasted. Some said it's still going on and some said that it ended in 1920 and 1940. The decision made within this group, because many of the people could not agree as to when it ended, created part of this webpage, to let the reader decide for themselves as to when it ended or if it's still occuring. However seeing as this was a group project, certain people did certain sections of the revolution. One person concentrated on Madero and Huerta, while another person wrote the section on Zapata and another on the Mexican Catholic Church. Discussion was at a minimal when finanlizing the project. Sorry for the inconvience this may have caused you. Few people got along and few people tried. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.177.232 (talk • contribs) 21 April 2006.

Hmmm.... Have never been on wiki before but this article got me going. Basically in agreement with the sentiments but the partisanship is, frankly, silly. Needs to a real overhaul. As a newbie I don't want to be presumptuous and take it on, but I'm any decent scholar of the period could whip this into shape quickly. Communard71 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Picture titled :"American forces at Veracruz."
The picture indicated as "American forces at Veracruz." is actually a photograph taken of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, ca. 1901. This information is confirmed by:

"The History of Guantanamo Bay 1494-1964"

by M.E. Murphy, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy originally published Jan. 5, 1953

This photo should be removed from this page, it does not indicate factual data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.142.5 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence
Hmm... This article is quite rough. For this reason, many leaders including Francisco I. Madero, Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata would launch a rebellion against Díaz, escalating into the eventual Mexican Revolution.

This is incorrect. Madero began the revolution because of a fraudulent election which he lost. In his Plan of St. Louis Potsi, there is but one paragraph relating to the agrarian problem; it is not the main feature of the text. And it is disputed how much Madero was motivated to effect significant land redistribution and reparation to those who had suffered from expriopriation - his slow pace of reform in this direction was the reason for Zapata's carrying on the rebellion after Madero's accession to the presidency.

As for Villa, he is a complex personality. He did profess to be fight for the poor, but in his own administration of his home state he didn't effect any significant land redistribution to campesinos or peons.

I think I've made my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.143.151 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

''This corrupt system only allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Many of the workers on these Hacienda farms were beaten like slaves and were constantly being put into debt from their previous generations. Díaz allowed this corrupt behavior to go on his entire time as he stayed in power.''

While I agree with this in substance, this reads like something from a children's book and it gives a very black-and-white picture. Surely this won't pass for encyclopedic writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.143.151 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Zapata and his army and allies, including Pancho Villa, fought for agrarian reform in Mexico.

Zapata and Villa became enemies, and the latter's commitment to agrarian reform is disputed. 27.32.143.151 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as you can get credible sources to prove the claims, go for it and make the changes. I give you the honors. This article needs A LOT of improvement. I am thinking of improving it by using the Spanish one as backbone and as an example for this one, since the Spanish one is featured article, but that's once I'm on my break. If you can start working on this, that would be great. Thank you, cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm writing a paper on the Mexican Revolution. With a little digging, yes, I could find reputable sources. However, I hesitate to impose my own version on the text because I am no expert. Moreover, I'm getting weary of studying this revolution, so I want a break. Better to use the Spanish version as a guide for rewriting the English one. There is an interesting discussion on Villa in Peasant and Caudillo. Most sources I've read describe this man as a popular leader but with no coherent policy on land-reform. There is a very good short article on the Mexican Revolution by Dr. Alan Knight in History Today. 27.32.143.151 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's really good. I'd suggest for you to finish your paper, turn it in (if you're in school) or publish it somewhere online as YOUR work. Then, if you have time, make some edits here. It would suck to have similarities in your paper with this article if it's a school assignment, because it might be considered plagiarism. I'll take a look at the sources you mentioned. It seems to me that the in Mexican Revolution, just in like in any other, there's always inconsistency in almost everything. In fact, in my hometown there are several documents on the Revolution that are ONLY found there. Imagine that! ComputerJA (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The anon is basically right with regard to the first part. Madero, Zapata and Villa all had different reasons for opposing Diaz - what they had in common was the opposition itself. After Diaz (well, Huerta), was gone that's when the differences manifested themselves. Roughly speaking, Villa really admired Madero or at least talked that talk, but he was playing his own game. Zapata was pretty suspicious of Madero (probably with good reason).

However, I don't think it would be correct to state that Zapata and Villa became "enemies". Rivals, yes, enemies, no. They took different views towards OTHER players in the Mexican Revolution but the two of them never really fought each other and on many occasions did cooperate and coordinate.

I agree that the article could use a decent rewrite.  Volunteer Marek  15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Death toll
Not even an estimation? That's really the only piece of info I came here looking for. 13:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)67.1.76.65 (talk)
 * The estimates go from 500,000 to 2,000,000 I'm not very active in this article, so if anyone is, please insert this info somewhere. It's from a reliable source. ComputerJA (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

First aerial dogfight ever
The first dogfight was during the Mexican Revolutiuon between two pilots firing at eachother with their handguns. Make a note of it!

-G

Yep. And pilots used lit sticks of dynamite to drop on targets. The commanders knew that these new flying machines would be a useful tool in the conflict. Later, Mexican workshops even assembled their own planes. There is little information about this in aviation history. It's a shame because most people believe the first aircraft used in combat were planes in WW1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.207.144 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop this fighting now
So you never get in to a fight.Also so you dont get heart.

THE END — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.87.49 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs More Info on 1912
This was an important year of the conflict along the US-Mexican border. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article should be revamped
Why does this article organize the history of the Mexican Revolution through biographical sections about the main figures of the revolution and not the traditional chronological timeline of events, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the latter be how this should be organized? Charles Essie (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Socialist slant
I find a socialist slant throughout the article. The author over stresses class struggle and the already addressed U.S. imerialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.112.199.170 (talk • contribs) 8 October 2006. then fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.73.179 (talk • contribs).

Although my knowlege and understanding of this era of Mexican history is limited, I would be suprised(if not disappointed) if these events were not examined with considerable emphasis on their ties and relationships with social reform, particularly socialism. Afterall Mexico was a country embarking on a period of growth and change during the height of the industrial age which also had a significant portion of the population living in extreme poverty under a pseudo-feudalist system. Just as it would be irresponsible to not emphasize the themes addressed by the socialist movement when discussing American or European history of this era, it's seems equally important, if not more so, to keep this in mind with respect to Mexico's history. Modern history, in my opinion, is dominated by the competing ideals and interests of capitalism and socialism. I think the words and actions of leading figures during this period make this plainly evident including T. Roosevelt, Rockefeller, Wilson, and on to FDR, Stalin, and Hitler. We should not fail to remember that during this very time numerous conflicts arose between the working class and corporate/business/governmental interests within the U.S. which had an unmistakable influence on the policy and direction of this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.6.97 (talk • contribs)

Yo, folks, chill it. There is bias here, it's the bias of any schoolbook history, in this case Mexican schoolbook history. Let's not try to yoke it to Socialism and Capitalism. This is a really really complicated and hard topic, I'd say more so than either the American or Russian revolutions (and that's saying a lot), so what we need is to take it slow and not get our blood up. --Homunq 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the where and in what direction you see the bias.

It's not really surprising that there is a lot of discussion of socialism in the article when we consider that many of the parties on the side of the revolution (especially as time went on) were almost all in favor of socialism, even if only in a vaguely defined way. One particular reference however, does not seem to make sense. I think perhaps it might just have been taken from a machine translation, or written by someone who doesn't speak English very well.

"After a series of interim presidents controlled by the party, Lázaro Cárdenas took power in 1934. Cárdenas was a socialist and began to base government policy on class struggle and empowering the masses. However, not all of his reforms were completely socialist, making him somewhat more centrist than purely socialist. Regardless, his rule was the most radical phase of the post revolution, social revolution." Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Two (2) dead?
I don't know if this is some long-standing vandalism or not, but the death toll for the counter-revolutionary forces is currently listed as 2. I have no real knowledge of the Mexican Revolution (that's why I was reading the article) but that figure seems low (and is contradicted by the confusing set of numbers directly below that number). I can't find within the history when this number was added so I have no idea if this is vandalism. If not, and in the 10+ years of the revolution only two people died on one side, perhaps some further explanation is necessary, particularly since the other numbers listed only confuse the matter. And per WP:BEBOLD, this is not something I am prepared to fix as I know nothing about the topic.  freshacconci  (✉) 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * what was meant: 2 Germans died, 500 Americans died. The presentation using only flags was faulty and I clarified it. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Civil War (?)
I was wondering why the first sentence of the articule states "The Mexican Revolution (Spanish: Revolución Mexicana), also known as the Mexican Civil War (Spanish: Guerra Civil Mexicana)". Where did that name came from? ¿Is there a quote for that? The reason why I'm asking is because no where in Mexican historiograhy is it ever called that, let alone in Spanish. Having it at the beggining of the articule differse quite a bit wfrom the current understaning of the conflict by modern Mexican historians as the "Mexican revolutions" (emphasis on the plural "s"). Maybe that's the name that is given outside of Mexico by foreign historians or political pundants. As far as I'm concerned, if there is no proper citation or link to another source, this would be the equivalent of calling the American Civil War "The War of Northern Agression". True, some people may call it that, but Wikipedia is no place to name it like that. Same goes to the Mexican Revolution. That's what they've always called it, even after recognizing that some parts of it were actually a civil war, it still doesn't change the fact that no sources call it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick Rozo (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The extent of the Revolution
_____Graft writes that he considers the Revolution ending in the 30's. I don't know that much about history, but my mother, Don~a Marie-Therese Padilla Santoscoy de Creighton, daughter of el licenciado Don Jorge Padilla, told me that in the 40's her father, she, and her sister Magda were still being persecuted. _____You see, my grandfather the attorney Jorge Padilla, according to my mother, was one of the founders of PAN(Partido de Accion Nacional). I don't know the extent of his contributions, but when I mentioned the name of my grandfather to a stranger in Chicago, in 1985, he was astounded, so it seemed, and pointed a finger repeatedly in my chest, saying"Do you realize who your grandfather was? Do you know?" _____My mother also told me that he, my grandfather (abuelo) had been a Cristero. This was an organization some of whose members took to the hills, so to speak, to hide and conduct a guerrilla against the PRI and government (one and the same, in a manner of speaking). ______Don Jorge Padilla had a house in Guadalajara, where my mother was born, in 1924. He was born, I think I remember, in 1894. Anyway, she said that once, the government sent the Army to close the church in La Barca where my grandfather and grandmother had their country home. My grandfather helped to organize the people so that they would fill the church with all their families, even the children. So many attended that the soldiers were compelled to back off. _______But apparently someone high in power hated my grandfather very much, for someone advised him that he was on a "death list." So was the Archbishop of Guadalajara. My grandfather and another man, I think an attorney, helped to smuggle the Archbishop out of Guadalajara, go by train to Los Angeles. Marie-Therese (she went by "Don~a Terri" or "Don`a Teresita" among her friends and acquaintances told me that this was the only time she knew that my grandfather had ever carried a gun, which I infer was some sort of pistol. ________My grandfather and his co-conspirator founded one of the first grocery stores in L.A. which carried Mexican foods, according to my mother. Because she had been arrested along with my aunt, Tia Magda, the two sisters soon joined him later in Los Angeles. ________You may wish to verify this by contacting Mr. Carlos Padilla who resides in a suburb of San Bernardino, or leaving a message for Mr. Pete Creighton at the Alumni Office of Knox College, in Galesburg, Illinois.  My mother is still alive, and may welcome an opportunity to pass this piece of history to an historian or student of history, as she is still of sound mind, as of this posting. _________Incidentally, one of my great-uncles or uncles is still in touch with the President of Mexico, Mr. Fox, according to my mother, but I don't remember who it is. I'm fairly sure that some of us support Mr. Fox to this day.

Per the translation request, I'm translating the Spanish version. Information in the English version not in the Spanish version will be merged in afterwards (original article is commented out at the end). Mgmei 05:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've done the merge -- Jmabel 07:52, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Rock on. Mgmei 17:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Graft's suggestions above would still be a good guide to the desirable eventual scope of this article. -- Jmabel 07:55, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

List
More things to mention


 * 1) Plan de San Luis de Potosí
 * 2) Plan de Guadalupe
 * 3) Plan de Ayala
 * 4) Ejidos
 * 5) Picture of Diego Rivera Mural (There's one related to the Mexican Rev, in mind. Can't find it)

Any more to add? Kimun 03:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The first two could easily be folded into the article. The Plan de Ayala obviously belongs in a (missing) section discussing the Zapatistas/Villistas, Magon brothers, etc. Maybe ejidos do as well. Are there any Diego Rivera paintings in the public domain? Probably a whole bunch of his would do... Graft 05:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

US Intervention
I'm inclined to say that a lot of the US stuff should be folded into the article, not broken off into its own section. Henry Lane Wilson, for example, should probably be discussed along with the overthrow of Madero. Does that sound like a good idea? Graft 18:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It probably should. No great problem integrating those 4 incidents into the chronological narrative (and the article's a bit sparse on events between Huerta and the Qro. constitutional convention anyway, which is where 2 of them would go). Are you volunteering? –Hajor 19:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why does it say US involvement was unfavorable when Wilson supported the overthrow of Huerta. I mean there were nuances given the differences between the US relationship with some rebels and others like Pancho Villa.

The belligerents timeline is absurd and conflicts with the rest of the article
Currently near the top of the article there's a timeline comparing the "forces in power" against the "revolutionary forces", but the people and groups placed under each heading make no sense and are in conflict with facts stated in the article as a whole. The timeline seems to want to view Carranza and the Constitutionalists as the "revolutionary forces" from the beginning of the conflict until the end. This might be for ideological reasons, but I'm not clear enough on what those might be to say for sure. The info box also declares that the outcome of the war was "revolutionary victory" when the facts are more complicated to say the least. A single timeline showing two continuous sides might not be the best way to present this information given the eventual splits among the revolutionaries.

At any rate, this clearly needs to be edited. The article even has a section titled "Constitutionalists in Power under Carranza, 1915–1920"!. If the Constitutionalists were in power from 1915 onward, then at that point in the timeline they were the "forces in power", and should be placed there. The Villistas and Zapatistas rebelled against the new forces in power, so they should be placed in the revolutionary forces group. As to "who won the war", it's certainly true that some of the original revolutionaries won, but it might not be possible to say more than that. Maybe it should say the Constitucionalistas won?

I'm all for presenting the true complexity of the situation as much as possible, but what we definitely shouldn't do is present a timeline that conflicts with the facts clearly stated in the rest of the article. I'm not really qualified to edit this, but if I don't see any comments or movement in a month or so I'll try to come back and work on it, because as of now it's pretty confusing.

amfucla (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that it needs to be sorted out. The main section I particularly took issue with was the implication that the Villistas and Zapatistas were the ones that held power in 1914-1919, when 1914-1917 was a period of civil war in which who exactly was in power was unclear. I think the most charitable reading would be that the Conventionists held power in 1914-1915, as the Constitutionalists only held the states of Veracruz and Tamaulipas during this time. But Carranza's government was recognized as the de facto governors of Mexico in 1915 and he officially became President of Mexico not long after. I have edited the infobox to attempt to better reflect this situation, it may still need going over, but I think it's more accurate now.--Grnrchst (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead section - length
Max. of lead should be 4 paragraphs. After a quick read, not sure how to shorten or compress content. Maybe move some details down into article? Any ideas would be helpful. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
Reyistas Felicistas Orozquistas

they should be moved from "1911-1913 revolutionary" to "1913-1914 counter-revolutionary" because:

1) they certainly did not exist in 1911; 2) they cannot be in the same box as Magonistas and Zapatistas. It is nonsense. 3) they were to the right of the sitting president, not to the left. You cannot put them in the same box as Magonistas and Zapatistas just because all of them (each for their own very opposing reason) were against the sitting centrist president. Especially, in an article describing the broader left-wing revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.40.132 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.
I'm searching google for pages on this subject. I'll do my best to edit out the fluff and trash to make it readable. Wish me luck.

I wish you luck, this page needs some help. Mrsuperboot (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Correction
Please correct the years shown for independence from Spain. Shows 1910 should be 1810 etc. Smplman40 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST3150
— Assignment last updated by Jackycccx (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)