Talk:To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World

Wikisource
shouldn't this be on wikisource, not wikipedia? --Alvestrand 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Review

 * Why did you choose not to use the entire letter in the opening image?
 * Although I completely believe the letter is "the most famous document in Texas history", the arguably always bothers me, as it introduces the fact that someone argued it somewhere. I prefer Major Historian Of Texas Sam Alamo Ranger characterized it as "the most famous document in Texas history".
 * What's not clear to me, a pitiful person in poverty of the intimate histories of Texas, is the immediate reaction to the letter. Did it spur hundreds to go to the Alamo and seek vengeance? Did it have any impact on hastening the end to the Texas Revolution?
 * Oops, there's some info in the Legacy section. It seems kind of removed from the action. I was expecting a reaction after the Distribution section.
 * I think this is an interesting look at what apparently was created as a quick note, and what it has become. Clearly it has importance to the history of Texas, and I like the detailed accounting of how a document as hastily constructed as this letter turned out to mean so much to the state's history - as opposed to the Declaration of Independence, that was carefully written in many draft forms before being finalized. However, it also made me wonder, as I am not a resident of Texas, yet from their "Don't Mess With Texas" bumper stickers and quite frankly, the way they drive in snow, I understand the regional identity of Texans to be unique in the U.S. What do your sources say about what the letter means to Texans of today? That spirit of independence - how is it translated still to be a most effective communication that it rings at the center of the hearts of Texans? I'm sure this is self-evident to many Texans who read this article. But it might be a good point to make for the many masses of sad sacks whose knowledge of Texas culture wanes with each unfortunate mile they reside from that great state. --Moni3 (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ampersands
...make baby Jesus cry. Does the best-known English title of the work really include one? Skomorokh 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes :( When in a hurry and cannonfire aimed at you, apparently one takes shortcuts. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, alack. I hope you'll forgive my not participating in the FAC for aesthetic reasons. Skomorokh  21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
In the opening sentence it says that it was a letter to the people of Mexican Texas whilst its title including among the recipients "All Americans in the World" suggests otherwise. I suggest it be changed accordingly. Invmog (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

World scale encyclopedia
I'm sure some people in Texas may think this is an extremely important document, but would people in, say, Christchurch NZ or Benghazi Libya really agree with that? I'm sure that it will offend many Texans but the truth is they are not half as interesting or important as they think themselves to be. Putting this rather minor and on world scale pretty trivial document on the front page of wikipedia is a disservice to wikipedia. Jcwf (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because an article is not important does not mean that it shouldn't be on the front page of Wikipedia. It is a featured article after all, and many people have worked hard on it. Kevinmon•talk•trib 20:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also the 175th anniversary of the Battle, so its appearance today makes some sense. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fame
According to Michael Green, former reference archivist for the Texas State Library Archives Division, the letter is "the most famous document in Texas history".

I am here opening an argument that has arisen several times over Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo da Vinci, as you all know well, is an incredibly famous person. As an artist, his fame outstrips that of every other painter, including his great contemporary Michelangelo and the modern era's Vincent van Gogh and Pablo Picasso. Because of this, it becomes necessary to state that he is "famous" (quite unusually famous) and has been so, ever since he was about forty.

The point here is that if this document is indeed "the most famous document in Texas history" then that fact is not a matter of opinion. The "fame" has its own independent existence. If this document really is very, very famous, then every Texan knows it, every schoolchild in Texas is taught about it. It is suffficient to say "the letter is the most famous document in Texas history" and then cite, not one but several reliable references, and mention in the citation the fact that there are 9 million links to it on Google.

If one historian (unless he is extraordinarily authoritative and highly regarded) says that it is (quote) "the most famous document in Texas history", this is meaningless. It is simply his opinion that the letter is famous. But if it is famous, then all you Texas readers and editors know that it is, and the fact must be stated with a conviction that bypasses the opinion of one person.

This is a point of logic which, I am aware, not everyboody will get. The answer will come back "you have to say who says its famous!" What I am saying is, find a more effective way to demonstrate this fame.

Amandajm (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No point in letting the grass grow... I editted the intro using info from further down the article, in order to give a much more thorough statement of the significance of this very important document. Amandajm (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

 * Images, Ugh!!
 * The image that shows the appendices to the letter reveals the brownish paper and the colours of the ink. The bright yellow of the main images is ghastly and gives no sense of the colour of the original. It is shudder-making! Is there truly no better image than these, which seem to have been crudely colour-adjusted by some amateur on their automatic-fix photo program?
 * Although I rarely say this, it would be better to have black and white images than images that misrepresent the original so horribly bady! Amandajm (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a much better version online, and colour adjusted the two pages to match the online version as best I could. They are still not entirely accurate as it was impossible to achieve all the subtle gradations that must have been there, before the two images were turned bright yellow. The main loss in these new versions (as compared with the online version I was using as reference) is that the transparency of the ink, and its distinct sepia colour (as against lamp black ink) has been lost. Trying to get back this sort of subtlety is like the proverbial silk purse/sow's ear. There are real limitations when the original is so poor. So I trust that my efforts will meet with approval! Note that I have retained the ghastly yellow images on Commons, because they will be clearer in terms of pixel definition than my adjusted ones. Amandajm (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)