Talk:Texas Revolution/Archive 4

Are we ready?
and anyone else who is watching, are we ready to go to FAC? We got some great feedback at the peer review and I think we've implemented all of it. I just did a major image revamp, which hopefully looks better. Anything gnome-y that still needs to be done? Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hooray! You did a map!  I like it. A quick thought regarding the Gonzales flag. Please see Gift Shop reproduction. — Maile  (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Took a lot of research, but I finally found that PD map. It just needed a few tweaks :)  Are we allowed to use the image you linked?  Not sure who took the photo, or whether that even matters. Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who took the picture is a semi-retired WP admin, and that shouldn't matter at all. My original thought was that the reader of this article could get the idea the image is the authentic original flag, so maybe change the wording a little.  I'm a little fuzzy on copyright issues if we show an image of something sold in a gift shop. — Maile  (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it. I changed the caption; if someone with more image knowledge comes along and protests, we'll substitute with the digital recreation. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. (in rereading this thread, I just realized how confused we both were with what each was saying. The joys of WP)  — Maile  (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding whether the article is ready for FAC: I think it is. There are a couple of minor questions I had at PR that aren't resolved, but they're not the sort of thing that would stop me supporting.  Karanacs: One thing I'd like to check: I had a question about the geographical meaning of "Texas" at various points in the article, and you said at PR you wanted to think about that some more.  Do you feel that issue is now resolved? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to read through the article on more time today,, and see what small fixes I might be able to do for that. I've also got the new maps added.  If all else fails, do you think a note would be sufficient? Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a note would be enough. So long as the reader has some way to be clear what's meant when the term is used, there shouldn't be an issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish language WP version of the revolution
As mentioned on the FAC template, I have run the WP Spanish language version of the revolution through Google Translate and posted it at: Talk:Texas Revolution/Google translation from WP Spanish version.— Maile (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I read through it. I was most surprised to see that there was no mention at all of the 1835 conflicts along the Gulf Coast (but not surprised to see the Grass Fight was ignored) and nothing about Refugio.  I'm pleased to see that of the English-language sources it used, I've read 4 (this article uses Davis and Hardin, Lord is massively outdated, and Nofi is a popular history with a lot of little errors in it), and that we used works by Josefina Zoraida Vázquez, even if they are smaller essays instead of her larger book. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording changes
and any others still watching the page. Maggie Dennis (of the WMF) passed along a request by the HISTORY channel's historians for some minor wording changes, and I'm a bit torn. Thought I'd throw it up here: Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in the lede, should we say "Santa Anna's forces" instead of "Santa Anna and his small vanguard force"? I think the issue is that the "small" vanguard was over a thousand men.  I'm unsure whether "Santa Anna's forces" make it clear that San Jacinto involved a subset of the Mexican troops instead of the whole army.
 * In the first paragraph of the background section, they suggested we change "the United States also claimed Texas" to "the United States also claimed parts of Texas". The former is correct in that the US claimed all of what was Spanish (and then Mexican) Texas.  The latter is correct in terms of the US didn't claim all of what is currently Texas.


 * The History Channel wants us to make changes? Er...um....
 * I think "Santa Anna and his vanguard force" works.
 * How about "the United States also claimed the area Mexico later defined as Tejas" (see map)
 * — Maile (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There were only 3 minor wording changes they requested (with the note that they knew it was up to us whether to incorporate them), and I understand the reasoning...just don't necessarily agree with their choices.
 * For now, have incorporated your suggestion to just drop small.
 * I don't like that - in 1803, Texas was still part of Spain.  I know this was one of the issues that  had too.  What if we say "On its southern edge, along the Medina and Nueces Rivers, Spanish Texas was bordered by the province of Coahuila.[2] On the east, Texas bordered Louisiana.[3] Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the United States also claimed the land east of the Sabine River, all the way to the Rio Grande."  This takes out the ambiguous "Texas".
 * Karanacs (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. Now that this has come up, I realize I've been unclear on exactly where the Texas borders were in 1803. The changes in Texas borders of the last 200 years can be confusing.— Maile  (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me too. I have no strong feelings about any particular wording, but I think it would be a mistake to use the word "Texas" unqualified in a context where it could mean different things, as the originally proposed wording had it.  Are the History Channel going to be mentioning the article on air at some point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll make that change since it seems to make things a bit more clear. The History Channel is for sure going to post links to the article on their Facebook page; I'm not sure yet what other marketing is going to be done (for the article). Karanacs (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Examples of FAs on war
The following articles about wars are already at FA status and may be good guidelines for how to best summarize and structure the article.
 * War of the Fifth Coalition - (Background, Course of War, Aftermath)
 * Byzantine civil war of 1341–47
 * Roman–Persian Wars
 * War of the Bavarian Succession
 * Cologne War

Suggestions for "Background" section
The article says "Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the United States also claimed the land east of the Sabine River, all the way to the Rio Grande." I find this somewhat confusing; if the U.S. claimed territory east of the Sabine River, how does that stretch of land extend to the Rio Grande, which is entirely west of the Sabine? I think I know what is meant here (examining these maps), but I think some readers would be bewildered by this wording. Could someone find a way to make this clearer?

Also, I find the wikilink to Louisiana here to be a bit strange. Certainly Texas was not bordered by the state of Louisiana during this period. I suggest either Louisiana (New France) or Louisiana (New Spain) as possible alternative options, with the former being my personal preference. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU. I am embarrassed that at this age I still don't always know east from west (thank goodness for GPS systems).  I also fixed the wikilink to point to the New France version. Karanacs (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Stepped Down
I find it quite unlikely that Santa Anna would have "stepped down" in order to lead the army personally (why would that even be necessary?), and the reference to Hardin doesnt strike me as sufficiently good for the topic of Mexican politics. I could not find corroboration of Santa Anna having stepped down in any of the immediate references about his life. I think this should be removed from the article and from the Today's Featured Article blub unless a better source can be found to corroborate it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article on Miguel Barragán corroborates Hardin (who is one of the most respected Texas Revolution historians) and cites Spanish-language sources (I don't read Spanish, unfortunately).  Barragán was president while Santa Anna was leading the army.  See also Will Fowler's biography, Santa Anna of Mexico, p 377.   If it makes matters more clear, I wouldn't mind changing the text to "Santa Anna transferred power to Miguel Barragán in order to...." Karanacs (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Barragan was elected as interim president only, necessary because the president had functions in relaiton to the Catholic Church that had to be carried out. The sentence is misleading because it suggests that Santa Anna somehow gave up power, when in fact he was probably hoping to return to an even higher office than President. He was still the de facto leader of the country while he was away. Costeloe's 1993 "The Central Republic In Mexico 1835-1946" describes this in detail. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your wording is fine, another could be "Miguel Barragán was made interim president while Santa Anna". The Office of President was not something entirely stable in this period and the actual power actually lay largely with whomever was the most powerful of the generals - Costeloe writes: " Between 1821 and 1851, fifteen generals occupied the presidential office, some on an interim basis and some, notably Santa Anna, on several occasions. During the same period, six civilians were acting or interim president but three of these for only a few days"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Tornel Decree, placing the text as a subpage here for future use
For reference purposes, Talk:Texas Revolution/Tornel Decree is the prose and two books it can be found in. — Maile (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of views for the FAC run on May 25, 2015
Stats have come back up. For May 25, this article had 26,131 views; May 26 had 10,646; May 27 stats seem to be lost; May 28 stats 5,955.

Battle of the Alamo stats has a one-time spike on May 26 to 10, 726 views

Battle of San Jacinto has 10,762 views on May 26 and 8,636 on June 2. The article is still being worked on, but next week's chapter in Texas Rising is supposedly about the Battle of San Jacinto. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The 27th is back up. This article got 11,584 on that day. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Noobie Editor Question about deleting a Reference book.
I manually reversed a revision that struck me a rather racistly anti-Tejano. It also mentioned the Catholic Church lending money to Santa Anna. This was a very intriguing statement I hadn't heard before (it does fit with some aspects of Santa Anna's politics) but could find no reference to it. The revision about Catholic loans cited Robert Scott's After the Alamo. When looking at reviews of Robert Scott's books on Amazon, it appears his Historical accuracy is very questionable. (Please check for yourself)... also here is a Texas A&M History Professor's review (denunciation) of After the Alamo: http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/central/books/reviews/after_alamo.html

I am proposing removing Scott's book from the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwolfe23 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "I've always thought there was no book about the Texas Revolution I didn't like, but I can no longer say that. The only reason to buy this book is to play a rousing game of "spot the historical blunders." I think Robert Scott has some good theories, although they are not earth shattering, but either he or the Republic of Texas Press should have submitted After the Alamo to some historians for editing. There are far too many factual errors to make this volume a worthwhile addition to the field of Texas history."


 * STRONGLY SUPPORT removing references to the book. That's about as damning an indictment of a supposed book on "history" as there could be. In fact, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and begin the cleanup process. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that I look at the original edit, I believe it is correct to remove this. It was added by an IP edit in January 2016 and not part of the article when it reached FA.  Thank you for being diligent on this. — Maile  (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * if you do have time to stop by this article, there are now a number of "Citation needed" tags. You might like to have a look at those, please. — Maile  (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooops, thought the edit had been reversed, but now I see Maile has reversed his own edit. 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) — BobWölfé23 and... that the Scott reference has been removed. So here's the completely newbie question... Was my course of action (starting this talk section) the most efficient (in terms of consensus) way to go? or what could I have done to make it easier for all? Bobwolfe23 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Normally, it's a good idea to post here on the talk page first. And then wait a few days or a week before deleting.  Other than that, because of past disruptive editing found on Featured Articles, I have been a little protective about this one.  The person who should be addressing this thread is   who wrote most of the prose and did most of the sourcing.  However, she has been absent for a few months.  You did OK.  No harm, no foul, but something that needed to be done. Thanks for your edits. — Maile  (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I like that the "citation needed" code was placed in the body of the article, as it makes it easier to provide sourcing to address specific points. MiztuhX (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: Tornel decree: In "The Colonization and Loss of Texas: a Mexican Perspective" pp.73-74, Vázquez Zoraida provides the context under which this decree was passed:  "The Mexican government, concerned about foreign interference in Mexico's domestic problems, had published on December 30, 1835, a circular that it made sure was widely distributed abroad." This statement debunks the notion that the decree was not widely distributed (as stated in article). MiztuhX (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've yanked the offending sentence. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * before you do anymore deletions on the say-so of any one editor, the one above in particular, you need to read Talk:Battle of the Alamo and the talk page archives. That article was protected for 6 months from editing by anyone but an admin.  The above editor is half the reason that happened.   wrote what you pulled, so I can't argue it either direction.  I'm just saying you need more than one editor saying so here.  Please don't open this article up to what happened on the Battle the Alamo.  It went to ANI Battle of the Alamo.  — Maile  (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I really think we should stay on topic and concentrate on discussing ways to improve this article in a collaborative spirit. I thought the edits by and  were fine. Keep up the good work!  :-) Furthermore, I don't believe the primary editor of the article has to be present for other editors to edit the article (consensus can change, and the primary editor, like any editor, can always ask for changes later). Since several editors are interested in working on this article now, this shouldn't dampen our enthusiasm! How about if we keep working on the talk page, suggesting scholarly sources and discussing possible deletions and/or rewrites, but not making any changes to the article so that this doesn't become an edit war? In the meantime, we can wait "a few days or a week" for other editors to show up and gain consensus before making actual changes to the article? Sound fair? MiztuhX (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I'm quitting Wikipedia due to misbehavior, bullying, gaslighting and other harassment by NewsAndEventsGuy and Bondegezou (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LavaBaron#80.25_likely_I_just_quit._Make_that_90.25. for details, noting they filed a bad-faith ANI action trying to get me blocked out of spite as well as their IP vandalism). Today the only thing I'm doing is closing down my involvement with one or two pages so nobody expects me to respond to anything.

Sorry Maile, MiztuhX, Bobwolfe... So long, and thanks for all the fish! Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that. Hope you return soon. Wikipedia needs good editors like you. Take care. MiztuhX (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to include population of Texas Indigenous peoples
In the Background section: "Texas was very sparsely populated, with fewer than 3,500 residents,[Note 3] and only about 200 soldiers,[11][12] which made it extremely vulnerable to attacks by native tribes and American filibusters.[13]"

Note 3 states: "This number excludes native tribes." I would like to replace that with: "The Indigenous peoples of Texas included the Lupin Apaches, Jumanos, Coahuiltecans, Tonkawas, Karankawas, Caddos, Comanches, and Wichitas.  By the time of Mexican independence, the Indigenous population of the province was around fifty thousand, a number which would later grow in the next decade as some ten thousand Cherokees, Seminoles, Shawnees and many other Indigenous communities east of the Mississippi, avoided forced removal by the United States by taking refuge in Mexico. (Dunbar-Ortiz, 126). MiztuhX (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I support including the Native population - but not necessarily mentioning all known tribes. What would be more useful would be an estimate of the number of indigenous inhabitants of the state's territory. Also the statement about Texas being vulnerable to attacks from Native tribes needs to go - they were not attacking "Texas" but settler communities. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thornton, giving data from Ewers 1973, gives the 1690 indigenous population of Texas as more than 42,000, and the 1890 indigenous population as a little less than 16,000. So at the time of the revolution it was likely considerably higher than that - perhaps higher than 20,000 people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, Dunbar-Ortiz agrees. She states 50,000 Indigenous peoples in Texas by 1821 and another 10,000 who arrived over the next decade. Also, I think it's important to mention each tribe in order to not lump them all together under the generic category of Indigenous peoples. Each tribe was/is a sovereign nation, so it's important to give them their due and recognize their place in history. This is what Dunbar-Ortiz, the author, does in her book. Plus, it serves as a starting point to include other references to specific Indigenous tribes who had interactions with Anglos, Tejanos, and Mexicans during this period in Texas history. There is a whole Native peoples' dynamic that has been left out of this article that I would like to gradually fill in.  But having said that I would be willing to just add a number to get my foot in the door. And I agree with you on your last point about Native tribes not attacking Texas!  :-)  A kind suggestion:  How about rewriting the sentence the way you would like it to read? I would love to read it! MiztuhX (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually already did. I think the tribal names if necessary would have to go in a footnote, since they are not directly relevant to the topic ofthe revolution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The summary I wrote in my first entry would all be included under [Note 3] which would only appear if you place your cursor above it. An interesting side note is that Mexico during the reign of Iturbide considered Native peoples their subjects if they were born in Mexican territory. Their colonization laws also applied to them if they converted to Catholicism. Anyway, let's wait a few days before adding this information to the article to see if any other editors would like to comment. Thanks, MiztuhX (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "colonization laws" when referring to the period under Iturbide? But yes, lets wait for more input. I think the most pressing problem has already been remedied by making it clear that the population figure only includes settlers.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating removal of Scott's "After the Alamo" references
Here is my assessment:

This is the first sentence (in bold) removed by  Many were slave owners, and most brought with them significant prejudices against other races, attitudes often applied to the Tejanos, where they mingled with the biases and prejudices of the Tejanos and those of indigenous peoples

So, what were these "significant prejudices against other races" held by these U.S. Southerners? According to Dunbar-Ortiz in "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States," (2014), Anglo-American racism was based on "Indian hating and white supremacy [which] were part and parcel of 'democracy' and 'freedom.'" (p.117) The populist poet Walt Whitman stated it thusly: "The nigg**, like the Injun, will be eliminated; it is the law of the races, of history." (p.117) And finally:  "Whitman's sentiments reflected the established U.S. origin myth that had the frontier settlers replacing the Native peoples as historical destiny, adding his own theoretical twist of what would later be called Social Darwinism." (p.118) The successive invasions and occupations of Indigenous nations and Mexico was colonialist and imperialist... "Mexico was just another Indian nation to be crushed." (p.118)

Therefore, in order to define these "prejudices" and give readers a better idea of the mindset and motivation of most "Texians," I suggest changing the above sentence to: "Many were slave owners, who brought with them racist attitudes and a belief of white supremacy over Indigenous peoples, African-Americans, and Mexicans." Comments, anyone?

I'll deal with the second half of the sentence later. MiztuhX (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Continuing with the argument to include mention of Texian racism instead of the euphemistic term "significant prejudices." From "They Called Them Greasers: Anglo Attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821-1900" (1983) by Arnoldo de León. Here are a few quotes to get the discussion going:


 * "...those who have traditionally dominated Texas history have published works that reveal, in fact and interpretations, serious flaws, deficiencies of research, and detectable bias, especially concerning the relationships between whites and Mexicans...overlooking a long racist and ethnocentric tradition toward blacks and Indians that was transposed upon native Texas castas as a matter of course." (ix-x)


 * "...I cannot help but support the theory that whites in the nineteenth century were more racists than cultural chauvinists...and that native peoples in the path of white civilization have historically been either exterminated or reduced to a hereditary caste because of the peculiar strain of that racism." (xi)


 * "Anglo settlers who arrived in Texas imported certain ideas from the United States, which regarded the native Mexican population as less than civilized. These attitudes ranged from xenophobia against Catholics and Spaniards to racial prejudice against Indians and blacks. Thus Mexicanos were doubly suspect, as heirs to Catholicism and as descendants of Spaniards, Indians and Africans." (4)


 * "The long history of hostilities against North American Indians on the frontier and the institution of Afro-American slavery molded negative attitudes toward dark skin, 'savagery,' 'vice,' and interracial sex. The majority of those who responded to empresario calls most assuredly thought along those lines, for they came from the states west of the Appalachians and south of the Ohio River—Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Mississippi, Georgia, and Kentucky." (6)


 * "Throughout the province, Tejanos had intermarried among themselves and with Christianized Indian women from local missions so that the colonists continued as a mixed-blood population. Their contrast to 'white' and salient kindred to 'black' and 'red' made Mexicans subject to treatment commensurate with the odious connotations whites attached to colors, races, and cultures dissimilar to their own." (6)


 * There are more quotes, but I think I've proved my point. Comments, anyone?  MiztuhX (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Another source, this time "Myths, Misdeeds, and Misunderstandings: The Roots of Conflict in U.S.-Mexican Relations" in "It Takes Two to Tango" by Rodríguez O. and Vincent:  "Both the Texas Revolt in 1836 and the Mexican War in 1846-1848 can be easily explained in terms of anti-Catholicism and anti-Spanishness, now transferred to Mexico, along with blatant desires for territorial expansion and expressions of racial superiority." (7-8)


 * Also: "Whereas the leaders of newly independent Mexico looked to their northern neighbor with expectations of friendship and collaboration, most citizens of the United States perceived the southern republic one as peopled by degenerate, inferior Catholic mongrels, who, like the Indians, did not deserve to retain their land." (10) MiztuhX (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So, according to these historians, other adjectives to describe Texian colonists would be: anti-Spanish, anti-Catholic, xenophobic, expansionist, and a sense of being God's chosen people to eradicate (murder) the savages, tame this barren land (steal), and make it productive as a sign of their righteous exceptionalism (Manifest Destiny).  I think by integrating these terms, the article would definitely improve it as it would balance out the current mythic and propagandistic tone of revolt and revolution.MiztuhX (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC) MiztuhX (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

'Texas' as adjective
Hello, I'm not a English native speaker, so understand my doubt, can "Texas" be an adjective? It would be be like "America revolution" instead of "American". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARX, Julius (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can, although it's not common; Paris Commune, Bangladesh Liberation War and Warsaw Uprising are a few comparable examples of "use of the place-name rather than the demonym in the common name of a revolt". In any case, we go by what something is commonly referred to (if the T.R. were commonly referred to as "Glorious Texas Seperate from Mexico Event" that's the name we'd use), and it's easily demonstrated that while it was primarily referred to as "Texan Revolution" at the time, since 1900 it's been consistently referred to as "Texas Revolution". (The spike in the older use in 1935–45 is no doubt due to historic documents being reprinted in connection with the centenary.) &#8209; Iridescent 08:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By comparison, we have Missouri Compromise, California Gold Rush. In general when it comes to the individual states, once "an" is put after the state, it is referring to a person who lives there such as Texan, Californian, Arizonan. — Maile  (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is curious, as Texas wasn't a state (yet). Bertdrunk (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Texas reveloution
You need more facts Abayomi Amusa (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits by known sock
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, now confirmed as a blocked sock of SkepticAnonymous, made numerous and questionable edits to this article beginning January 22, 2016. I have reverted this Featured Article back to its state before this sock made any of the edits. — Maile (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just an F.Y.I., as of this date, the SPI (Sock Puppet Investigation) case against SkepticAnonymous is still open. In addition, — Maile (talk) is now attempting to link my edits to Prostentic Vogon Jeltz as also being the work of a sock puppet. I wholly deny the charge. Click here to view and/or comment on this case.  MiztuhX (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoring History of Mexico sidebar. Do not remove again.
History of Mexico First Republic was removed. Don't do that again. Discuss here anytime, but do not remove a sidebar on a Featured Article. Especially since this article is of vital importance to the history of Mexico. — Maile (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted removal of sourced material as "dubious"
I have reverted the edit which has the summary Removed dubious statement without citation. That material absolutely has a citation at the end of the next sentence that applies to both sentences. Wikipedia does not say we need to stick a citation at the end of each and every sentence. But for proof, dig out the Haley book Lone Star Rising, and look at pp 60 and 64, exactly as the citation lists it. You will see that it sources those statements. — Maile (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"Texian"
The article repeatedly uses this odd phrase. I had thought that, like the NFL team, something from Texas was Texan and not Texian. Perhaps it's an academic distinction separating the Republic of Texas from the US state of Texas? If so it should be explained. 86.139.252.111 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The term has its own article, linked the first time you see it. Click on that link, and you'll have your answer. — Maile  (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Garbage "source" that needs removal
Who the hell let this be a source for this article?

Scott, Robert (2000). After the Alamo. Plano, TX: Republic of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-585-22788-7.

This book is a complete pile of lies - there's an excellent review of it by a REAL historian here. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/central/books/reviews/after_alamo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.166 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. We went through this about the same time last year, and it was all posted by (now blocked) socks of a known sock master.  Not that this is the case here.  But nevertheless, one Texas A&M employee's opinion/review of a book ... is just one person's POV. The "review" is not a verifiable source, and cites no credible sources for the opinion stated there in. How is somebody whose title is "Books editor" a "REAL historian"? The same source was cited last year by the socks with the same review URL. Content was removed without consensus last year by one of those socks, using the link you have above in the edit summary.  But we can ping  who did the research on the book. — Maile  (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And if it's helpful to anyone reading this thread Talk:Texas Revolution/Scott are Karanacs' notes from the book that she used for the article. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki has rules about WP:SCHOLARSHIP that a source has to pass before we call it a RS. here are two key ones that "After the Alamo" flunks: 1) Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. and 2) One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.  in this case the publisher specializes in children's books and not in scholarship--note that the scholarly literature on the "Republic of Texas"  runs to hundreds of books and articles says google scholar.  2. Google scholar list zero reviews in any journal.  the only cite is a one-line listing  in a non-scholarly book entitled Historic Tales from the Texas Republic: A Glimpse of Texas Past. Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I still say we need to hear from on this, since I'm not the one who used that source and cannot explain for her.  Also,, I noticed that you deleted this article's FA rating with your edit. I like to believe that was just an error, since no one individual can remove FA status from an article. I have restored it above.  — Maile  (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks--yes deleted by mistake. Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * SPI adding for historical reference. Recurring, likely sock of the one causing the disruptive editing/deletions on this article before.  Advice from SPI is to block any future IP edits here that follow the above pattern on this article. — Maile  (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out next time that this article was reviewed by historians from The History Channel (including, I suspect, Stephen Hardin himself), who had nothing to say about the book or the content from it. I see that a lot has been removed from the article already but I haven't looked at it in depth. I'm still on a self-imposed break from fighting on Wikipedia, so I'll be concentrating on my own little corner of WP for now (blame the Houston rodeo - I seem to be a bit obsessed with cowboys). Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Used To Be About History" Channel seems to have screwed up their own research on it though http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/movies-tv/article/10-things-the-History-Channel-s-Texas-Rising-6299393.php#photo-7972816 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

So I'm doing some more looking and it looks like this violates the WIKIPEDIA:SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCES guideline. "Republic of Texas Press" looks to be a vanity publisher or "print for hire" publisher that was a subset or subsidiary of Rowman & Littlefield, BUT when I tried to locate the book in their catalog, R&L have delisted every single book that was published under that name.

When I go in and try to find them elsewhere I find that the name has basically been nonexistent after publishing a whole lot of dodgy books around the year 2000. The last thing it "published" was in 2009, and that was a work-for-hire tourist book "Exploring Dallas With Children" 4th Edition. https://openlibrary.org/publishers/Republic_of_Texas_Press

When I try to find the author I come up with a few other books "Blood at Sand Creek", "Plain Enemies" and "Glory, Glory, Glorieta: The Gettysburg of the West". Each of these is full of historical errors, map errors, and general incompetence. Also, the guidelines state that to even consider a SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCE for usage, they have to be a credentialed expert in their field. Copied direct from Amazon, the background of incompetent writer Robert Scott is "Bob Scott lives in north central Michigan with his son and a cat. He is a past resident of several Texas cities," and that is the extent of his supposed qualifications.

If I tried to use this shoddy excuse for a book in my classes, my profs would flunk me and with good reason!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I went and bought the book off amazon. It's a fucking joke. 1st page, the author claims that Cherokees (located nowhere close to Texas) were fighting with settlers instead of the Comanche. His references to maps are all over the place too, at one point he seems to think that San Antonio is east of Austin. Maybe the author took one too many hits with a crack pipe or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. This is not a controversial fact. If you want to remove the book, find an alternative source for the information.Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally Ignores Larger Context of War / Bias Problem
This article appears to completely omit the context of the revolution, which totally slants the view. There probably should be more mentioned about how Texas had originally wanted to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824, and that Mexico was a federal republic, modeled in part after the U.S., and that Texas was not the only state to rebel, but was also not the only state to actually successfully declare independence. The Republic of Yucatan also declared independence for the same exact reasons as Texas, but that is not what is usually written. Instead, you get a very biased view of history that ignore certain inconvenient facts.


 * The Texans have a bias because they focus on everything Texas.
 * The liberal Northerners often have a bias because they want to paint Texas as this evil slave-owning state, so they overemphasize the role of slavery in the revolution. (Hint: restoring the Constitution of 1824 would not have given Texans slavery, and restoration of the Constitution was originally what they were fighting for.)
 * The Mexicans don't like talking about the fact that they had a civil war where a democratically elected government was overthrown, and the fact that half the Mexican states rebelled, and two actually seceded (the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Yucatan. (Yucatan later rejoined about 10 years later after Mexico agreed to reforms.) If they focus on Texas and the U.S., they can ignore the reasons the other Mexican states rebelled.
 * Most Americans, especially those loyal to the federal government, would not want to admit that the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was modeled, in part, after the U.S. Constitution because that would mean that if a tyrant can overthrow the government in the Mexican federal union, it could happen in the U.S. too.
 * Some people want the war to be about us vs. them (white people vs. brown-skinned people), so they downplay the roles of brown-skinned Mexicans and play up the roles of the white-skinned Mexicans in an effort to continue that narrative. But the reality is that rebelling against Santa Anna wasn't about race at all. It was about restoring democracy and over half of the Mexican states, including what is now the State of Texas, rebelled specifically in an attempt to restore the Mexican Constitution on 1824, and only declared independence when it was clear that would not happen. But that does not fit their narrative.

Personally, instead of having each one of those biased groups keep overwriting the other biased group's points, I would like to see competing facts and information and theories posted, and let readers make up their mind, rather than people continually deleting inconvenient facts that do not align with their view of Texas and the revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

the Mexican government believed...
The statement "the Mexican government believed the United States had instigated the Texas insurrection with the goal of annexation" is probably false, especially if you factor in the fact that nearly half the other Mexican states openly rebelled and a huge number declared independence, that all of them, including Texas, were originally demanding the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 before declaring independence, and two actually succeeded in leaving the Mexican union (the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Yucatan). I'd love to see some evidence where the Mexican government thought that Texas was demanding the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 for different reasons than the other rebelling states. Texas and Yucatan and others only declared independence when their efforts to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824 failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209143037/http://www.thealamo.org/plan-a-visit/index.html to http://thealamo.org/plan-a-visit/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Reworking the lead - some thoughts
and User talk:141.131.2.3 when redoing the lead, we need to take into consideration that the Texas Revolution was not just a bunch of white guys from America. One of the issues I had before reworked the article, is when I ran a search through the text and it was absent of any Texas-Mexican participation on the Texas side of the revolution,  Let's please not accidentally lapse back to that. The Mexicans in Texas were it in for many reasons, but it's doubtful Texas would have ever broken with Mexico without participation of an armed force of Mexican-ancestry soldiers/scouts. Both American colonists and native Texas Mexicans had different views for why they participated. Erasmo Seguín, Juan Seguín – their families had come from the Canary islands and settled San Antonio. Also, José María Jesús Carbajal was mentored by Stephen F. Austin, and became a guerilla fighter who hated Santa Anna, but he loved Mexico. Even among the American colonists, not all of them wanted a break with Mexico. Plácido Benavides from Victoria brought about 200 Mexican men to oust General Cos during the Siege of Béxar, but he never wanted a break with Mexico. Take a look at List of Alamo defenders. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Mexicans who fought against Santa Anna, with different goals in mind. We can't eliminate them, and it wasn't as clear as most wanting a break with Mexico. There were a hefty number of Mexicans under Juan Seguin who were not only scouts at the Alamo, but also fought with Houston all the way to the final Battle of San Jacinto. Many issues. Maybe it's not as easy as it looks to rewrite the lead. Discuss here, OK?

— Maile (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with simply removing the ethnic discussion from the lead sentence. Those issues can be discussed later in the lead. Nevertheless, that was not the primary point of the edits. The lead does not conform properly to MOS. Please explain why the importance of deviating from WP standards.
 * Thanks.
 * -- MC


 * I don't actually have a problem with removing that either. Looking back on when this article achieved Featured Article status, it said "colonists" then.  It could be said the revolution was fought by both colonists from North America, as well as Mexicans born in Coahuila y Tejas (or whatever existed when they were born).  But I'm all for simplicity and not over-thinking this.  Since  has also some done some recent editing on the lead, let's see if he posts here about this. — Maile  (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy to defer to your lead. I was using or extrapolating from earlier article revisions, and I very well could have gotten it wrong! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Siete Leyes
Sadly, this featured article seems to miss the Siete Leyes by Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna which effectively abolished the current federal republic and established a dictatorship-like central republic. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's there—Santa Anna soon revealed himself to be a centralist, transitioning the Mexican government to a centralized government. In 1835, the 1824 Constitution was overturned; state legislatures were dismissed, militias disbanded. The reason you can't find any references to "Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna" in the article is that Juan wasn't Santa Anna's name. &#8209; Iridescent 09:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality of Language Lacking
I believe that the writing style of this page suffers from quality issues. Consider: "The new Texas government and army met their doom...": met their doom?

Consider the following:

"What is significant is a Spanish royalist lieutenant named Antonio López de Santa Anna fought in this battle and followed his superiors' orders to take no prisoners. Another interesting note is two founding fathers of the Republic of Texas and future signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836, José Antonio Navarro and José Francisco Ruiz, took part in the Gutiérrez–Magee Expedition"

"What is significant" and "Another interesting note"? ... not a good way to introduce a new statement or idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaudoin (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"After the Alamo"??
Why is this book by a racist who isn't a historian quoted all over the page? Seriously what the fuck, "Republic of Texas Press", a pay-to-print scam publisher?
 * This needs discussion. I looked for the author on Amazon and he is not a historian, has no academic position or degree in history; most of his other books are "biographies" reviewed as highly inaccurate and sensationalized. The publishing imprint appears to have had low standards for truthfulness and fact checking,  publishing books like "spirits of the alamo" claiming that the site is haunted and "ghosts of north texas". I do not see how this book qualifies as a reliable source under guidelines.

There are three books cited from Republic of Texas Press, which is an imprint of the publisher Rowman & Littlefield, and that is certainly not pay-to-print. The one mentioned is only cited once, the two others are more extensively so. It's not an academic press and I can't say the qualifications of its authors - but a serious concern is being raised. It's not clear which author you are particularly criticizing.--Pharos (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Readability issues

 * During a first read of the article I ran into a few instances of confusion. In the San Jacinto section a sentence begins (5th paragraph, 5th sentence) "In what historian Davis called...", and it is easily identified that this is not part of the story line but an outside interjection.
 * Using an unidentified "dropped in name" "According to Barr..." (Siege of Béxar section; last paragraph) causes more than one problem. It is hard for someone to "get into a story" when a name appears out of nowhere. At best this causes a pause, "Barr", who is that?", and maybe a look back to see how the name was missed. It is now a decision to either keep reading or possibly get side-tracked maybe looking at the reference. For a "reader" this issue should not be presented. When a new name is presented as an interjection from anyone outside the story line (an author, historian, etc...) this should always be identified.
 * If "Hardin" ("According to Hardin...", Mexican retreat and surrender section, 2nd paragraph; 3rd sentence) is an historian his name should always be presented as such, especially in new paragraphs, sections, and subsections.
 * Articles are supposed to always be written for the general reader and not an expert, historian, or another editor, so tossing in unfamiliar names should always be explained and a good etiquette. "According to Lack.." (Republic of Texas subsection; 1st paragraph, 5th sentence) should be "According to Historian Lack" (if that is the proper presentation) so that a general reader can note the interjection and keep reading. At the very least if a reader runs across "Lack points out..." (Legacy section: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence) it might be mentally noted, "that is an historian{?} like Davis".
 * I am just pointing out examples from a certain point and didn't re-read the entire article. I hope someone involved in the article will look at this to lessen reading obstacles. Thank you and Happy New Year, Otr500 (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How is it Wikipedia's fault if you didn't read the article? For every single one of the examples you've given, the article explains who the person in question is and wikilinks their name on their first appearance (with the exception of Paul Lack, who doesn't currently have a Wikipedia bio). Are you seriously claiming that you think it would improve readability if we e.g. wrote out Texas Tech University professor emeritus Alwyn Barr in the body text each time he's cited? &#8209; Iridescent 08:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply: Hello, I am not "trying to claim" anything but: There is a reason that, especially on long articles, it has been acceptable to reuse a link or even an explanatory note ("Reference"). Note: Antonio López de Santa Anna (a major subject) is linked to three times, from the lead to the first (Background) section, and five times including the infobox and an image, so pardon me if you feel my questioning is somehow preposterous ("Are you seriously claiming"). I didn't (and still don't) think what I saw as a concern should be dismissed with what seems to be a sarcastic reply. A lot of people that might read the article would certainly know something about Santa Anna so maybe five inline links could be considered over-kill and maybe a second link (or so) to a source quote not so far-fetched?
 * A reply that has wrong and deceptive wording (such as "...if you didn't read the article?"), I didn't "re-read" the article at the time (--that can be found immediately above the nonsensical reply), apparently meant as belittling comments, was certainly pointless. It could beg the question "did you not actually read my comments"?


 * Maybe name descriptions could be used more than once for a quote, or editor added source comments, after several sections (possibly just listed as "professor Barr"), without breaking some unknown editorial code on sources or offending some Supreme Protectorate. I don't know (and now I don't care), I just saw what seemed to me to an issue on a "featured" article so mentioned it. I felt that when reading names that suddenly appear in a story line (even "if" explained thousands of words previous) was distracting. From my point of view I feel the misleading and condescending additional comments could have been left out. An article protector/Admin/editor does not have to give rude replies when something is questioned unless they don't care about, or maybe just forget, that civility is part of the Five Pillars. Maybe it was thought that the opening sentence and "Are you seriously claiming..." are normal replies but I submit they are not. At any rate, have a great day and Have a Happy New Year,  Otr500 (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2020
Change "interim" to "ad inerim" 70.123.147.67 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See wiktionary. If you think this change is necessary, please establish consensus. -   t • c 21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding link to text in 1st paragraph for readability
Barnesbarnsey (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)I believe that adding a hyperlink to the words "annexed by the United States" (which are at the end of the 1st paragraph) in order to direct readers to the page "Texas annexation" would be very helpful, as an understanding of this later event is essential for those interested in Texan history.

Rights of Citizens
From the lede: " the rights of its citizens had become increasingly curtailed, particularly regarding immigration from the United States". There is clearly something wrong there. Citizens don't need a right to immigrate from a different country. Could the writing be lifted from a non-neutral source? In any case, it needs correction. Jd2718 (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a great point, how is a person from a different country, who is not a citizens and has no rights, having their rights curtailed? Is someone suggesting that immigration itself is a right? I would like to see a list of the rights supposedly curtailed. Besides the "right" to own slaves.GalantFan (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2022
I believe you need to edit or delete this line: Mexico had officially abolished slavery in Texas in 1830, and the desire of Anglo settlers to maintain the institution of chattel slavery in Texas was also a major cause of secession.[6][7][8]

You can delete it, since the author of this clearly has racial motives in mind and slavery was in no way a major cause of independence from Mexico, as you see in his portion on the Talk page and in fact, in the rest of your article which covers the real reasons why Texas wanted Independence.

Or you can edit/replace it to read as follows:

There were several main causes that led Texas to declare its independence from Mexico: 1)	Continued armed conflict and political turmoil between Texas settlers and the Mexican government; 2)	The re-introduction of suspended tariffs and certain taxes to Texas settlers in 1830 and Mexico’s military enforcement of them; 3)	Continuing turmoil and unrest within the Mexican government itself, which resulted in instability and the desire for Texas to have its own administration; 4)	Mexico’s introduction of laws against Anglo-American immigration into Texas; 5)	The imprisonment of Stephen F. Austin in Mexico for 18 months, which angered many settlers; 6)	The dictatorial and centralist type of government in Mexico City, which conflicted with Texan’s who were used to the United States’ Republic style of government; 7)	Santa Anna’s “Seven Laws” of 1836, reconstituting all Mexican states (including Texas, which was part of Coahuila) as military districts; 8)	The violence shown against Texas settlers by Mexican authorities with no legal way for the settlers to redress the government; 9)	The lack of government supported education; 10)	The forcing of settlers into Catholicism, without the freedom to worship as they chose; 11)	The lack of the Mexican government to protect settlers from hostile Indian Tribes, and sometimes joining with the Tribes to attack Texans All of these problems culminated in the Battle of Gonzales in 1835, when Mexican authorities were sent to retrieve a cannon given to the settlers to protect them from Indians, and they were met with the famous line: Come and Take It.

Sources:

[1] Britannica.com/topic/Texas-Revolution [2] Texas Declaration of Independence, March 2, 1836 (Texas State Library and Archives Commission) [3] Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans, by T.R. Fehrenbach [4] Texas State Historical Association, Handbook of Texas: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/gonzales-battle-of Tammywarren (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was obviously a big enough issue that "property" rights were mentioned repeatedly in the declaration of secession, and the new constitution explicitly authorized slavery and forbade any attempt at liberation. And Austin and many others were very adamant about it.
 * So when you claim "Slavery in Texas was just not that big of an issue in 1836. At all." This is BLATANTLY untrue.
 * And when you say there were very few slaves, that is also a falsehood, as there were about 5000 out of 38,470 total non-natives.
 * "In 1829, John Durst, a prominent landowner and politician, wrote about the president's emancipation of slaves, “We are ruined forever should this measure be adopted” . Stephen F. Austin replied,
 * "'I am the owner of one slave only, an old decrepit woman, not worth much, but in this matter I should feel that my constitutional rights as a Mexican were just as much infringed, as they would be if I had a thousand.'"
 * In 1830, Austin wrote that he would oppose Texas joining the United States without guarantees that he should "insist on the perpetual exclusion of slavery from this state [Texas]". In 1833, he wrote:
 * "'Texas must be a slave country. Circumstances and unavoidable necessity compel it. It is the wish of the people there, and it is my duty to do all I can, prudently, in favor of it. I will do so.'""GalantFan (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)