Talk:Treaty of Ciudad Juárez

Cursory review
A few suggestion, per a request from radek for a review:
 * Lead - should provide an overview of the entire article, and not have information that hasn't been incorporated elsewhere in the article. Also, not really necessary to have citations in the lead, because presumably the material from the lead has been presented and adequately cited elsewhere in the article.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did Madero's proclamation cause uprisings? Needs more development and explanation.
 * Was Orozco a supporter of Madero? Is that the reason he attacked Federal troops? Needs more development and explanation.
 * How were the Zapatas involved? I've always found this a confusing bit of history, and don't understand from the article whose side they took, and why they rebelled. Again, needs development.
 * The article states that Madero, Pancho Villa and Orozco marched with an army to Ciudad. Were they considered rebels. Would this be called a rebel army? Did the rebels have a name?
 * Reinforcements arrived from where for the commander of Ciudad? From Mexico City? Were they Federal forces?
 * When were POWs killed? Needs context.
 * Did the Zapatas have different grievances and aims than those of Madero? If so, develop and explain.
 * What were the political and strategic reasons to attack Cuautla?
 * Why was the capture of Cuautla important enough to make Zapata a hero?
 * Why did they meet in New York? Was it neutral? Who facilitated the meeting?
 * Explain the importance and power of the hacendados vs. the aims of the Zapattistas.
 * The Treaty's terms section finally mentions revolutionaries. That needs to be made clear earlier.
 * Implementation section - the series of short choppy sentences should be combined, or recast.
 * the above mentioned Orozco - occurs in the 2nd to last paragraph. As Orozco is mentioned early on, it's not necessary to use "above mentioned". If the article is well developed, the readers will know and remember who Orozco is, and his role in the story.
 * Did the Treaty of Ciudad cause greater rebellion, death, etc.? Did the Treaty of Ciudad cause the Zapatistas to continue their rebellion? If so, that's very important and is only mentioned in vague sense at the end of the article.
 * put the Treaty of Ciudad into context by explaining how it was caused by past events and how it affected events to come.
 * Has MoS and prose issues, but would tackle the suggestions above first. I'll watch the page and see how it comes along.


 * Thanks! This is what I was looking for and I got to say, it makes me happy. I'll work on these and use the above as a bit of a checklist. Not all of them can necessarily be addressed completely however - the Mexican Revolution is one confusing affair (more so than the Russian one), with ever shifting alliances, switching of sides, splintering of movements and unclear and fluent motives (including plain old banditry) - and part of the aim was to keep succinctly on topic. For example the question "Was Orozco a supporter of Madero?" has probably five different answers. Anyway, I appreciate the effort.radek (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad the suggestions are helpful. As for problems such as the five different answers to Orozco supporting Madero, the best solution might be to explain (as you did here) the problems directly in the text, if you can find a source to support it. Agree the Mexican Revolution is confusing - one reason I wanted to read this article. Always seeking clarification in my mind on that particular piece of history. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is that if it is done for every aspect/personality involved the article will become one on the Mexican Revolution itself, which is why I tried to keep the focus on the Treaty itself. I'll try though.radek (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Prioritize and do the easy suggestion first and leave the more complicated ones for later. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the main article, to see what's there (I haven't yet) and to familiarize myself a bit more with the history. I always think of this as similar to putting together a jigsaw puzzle - sometimes you'll fine a piece will fit where you thought none would fit at all. Anyway, begin small.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As you requested, here are some more detailed comments; once the article comes up to FAC again, notify me and I'll give a prose/Mos review, then probably support.
 * "fled to San Antonio, Texas": here, p. 47, says he went to El Paso. It's probably a matter of conflicting sources, so it might be best to just say "Texas"
 * The same source says "and his supported promulgated the Plan de San Luis Potosi, an antimilitaristic plan..." while the article says it called for a "violent overthrow"
 * There's two paragraphs on the revolution against Diaz but only one vague sentence about the Zapata brothers. While they might be less significant, you can expand on it a bit more: what, specifically, caused the agrarian unrest?
 * A map showing Ciudad Juárez's proximity to the US might be helpful
 * The last sentence of Orozco and Villa take Ciudad Juárez probably belongs in the last paragraph also
 * Did any outside parties react to the treaty?
 * Do the treaty's terms have any power today?
 * Most of all, I think the article lacks any sort of historical analysis; with any historical event, historians will have different opinions about it. Mm40 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "fled to San Antonio, Texas": here, p. 47, says he went to El Paso. It's probably a matter of conflicting sources, so it might be best to just say "Texas"
 * The same source says "and his supported promulgated the Plan de San Luis Potosi, an antimilitaristic plan..." while the article says it called for a "violent overthrow"

He fled to/through El Paso, the plan was proclaimed in San Antonio. Will try to clarify, for now just made it Texas. The Plan explicitly called for an "armed uprising" in its point 7: "On or after November 20 next, 6 o'clock p.m., all citizens of the Republic will take up arms to oust from power the present authorities" (point 8 is about fighting back in case the authorities resist but observing the laws of war). Other sources state that the plan called for a violent overthrow. I'm guessing that the "anti-militaristic" in the source above refers to the fact that it was "anti-Mexican-military" (if they were to support Diaz) not as in "pacifist". Note that the following sentence in the source states that "strategically it called for an internal war...''. For now will change "violent overthrow" to "armed uprising".radek (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A map showing Ciudad Juárez's proximity to the US might be helpful

I added this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Ciudad_Juarez.png with a caption explaining the importance of the location. However, it's a pretty bland picture, I don't think a more aesthetically pleasing map is available and I'm a bit concerned that the article could get too cluttered up with images.radek (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Most of all, I think the article lacks any sort of historical analysis; with any historical event, historians will have different opinions about it."

I think this is a very excellent point and I'll probably add an "Evaluation" (or something) section to the article.radek (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)