Talk:Texas Revolution

"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? ‑ 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)

 Not done: See wiktionary. If you think this change is necessary, please establish consensus. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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.

Slavery as a cause of the Texas Revolution

Many academic sources identify the desire of Anglo Texans to preserve slavery in Texas after Mexico abolished it in 1829-30 as an important cause of secession. With Juneteenth being made a federal holiday such issues are perhaps particularly pertinent. Some examples of academic commentary on the importance of maintaining slavery to the Revolution:

"Ironically, a Revolution fought to secure slavery from Mexican interference provided far more opportunities for slave resistance than had ever existed under Mexican rule."

"In 1835-1836, the simmering tensions between Anglo settlers and the Mexican government boiled over. A number of issues, not the least of which was slavery, lay behind the rift."

"Texas slaveholders thus found the institution troublesome and unsettling, but, at the same time, it benefited them to the extent that they would attempt a revolution to keep it."

A recent book has a thoughtful discussion of the historiography of the Texas Revolution and takes this multi-causal explanation: Adopting a wider perspective, indeed, reveals how a complex tangle of cotton, slavery, and Mexican federalism—rather than any single factor—produced the fights that eventually led to the Texas Revolution.

From an entire article written on the subject: From the Anglo Texan perspective the constitutional changes of [1830] once again threatened liberty and interrupted economic progress, their version of which included a system of slave labor. Texans took up arms in 1835 against a regime that apparently intended to undermine their political ideals, their emerging prosperity, and their understanding of social and racial peace. Clearly the challenge to slavery contributed to the Texas decision to resist the new order in Mexico.

There are many more relevant but this is just what I've had time to research so far. With this in mind, I've added the following sentence to the header:

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.

Frankly, I think the role of slavery in the Revolution should have much greater prominence on this page, but obviously careful research is needed. Thoughts and comments welcome! Noteduck (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)