Talk:Pancho Villa Expedition

Relevance

The last two paragraphs of "Campaign" have nothing to do with the rest of the article (and query what they have to do with anything). Consider deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.161.6 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated Link

I'm not a wiki pro so I'll let others make the update. The link to the Reference article at the Secretaria Mexicana de la Defensa Nacional has moved. Here is the new address:

http://www.sedena.gob.mx/index.php?id_art=149

Changes made

Hit save before I could put in a proper edit summary:

• Timeline link shifted around.
• Photos resized, especially the 2 giant ones; no reason to have them that big or so placed, as anyone can see them at full resolution by clicking them to get through to their respective image pages.
• Link to Commons added; no need to flood the article with pics that can be linked to thus.

--BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1st Aero dropped the "Provisional" back in 1913, and they deployed into Mexico with the JN-3, an aircraft too underpowered for the mountains there. The JN-4 came much later. The book cited does not mention the JN-4, at least on page 122. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.161.2.10 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible name change

Most books I have read ID's this as the Punitive Expedition, as it was designed to punish Pancho Villa. I think that the alternate name should at least be mentioned.Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

that might take a disambiguation page. i've always heard of punitive expedition relating to the british attack on the benin palace in 1897. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be renamed if you want to use it for reference. The official name of the American response was "Punitive Expedition." If you go to the National Archives and look for documents on this subject, you have to go to "Punitive Expedition."60.247.107.98 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Famous Participants-

The paragraph discussing famous participants on the expedition is long, seems to ramble on, is irrelevant to the main subject and definitely has a POV. There are no references throughout the paragraph. The calling of W. F. Buckley Jr. pro-Fascist seems slanderous. Johnswrittenword2009 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

agreed. section removed.68.206.123.207 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of the Mexican Expedition as a Training Ground for the National Guard

The artile completely fails to address the roll of the National Guard in the crisis. President Wilson, using his new authority under the National Defense Act of 1916 called out the entire National Guard of every state and deployed it to the border area. Althought only a small force of mostly Regular Army Soldiers actually corssed into Mexico as part of the Punitive Expedition. Over 100,000 National Guard Soldiers spend the winter of 1916-1917 on the border in training camps. Most of these very same national guard units had been home and demobilized for less than a year when they were again activated for World War I. Several writers have indicated that President Wilson actually utilized the Mexican Expedition as a pretext to dramatically increase the preparedness of the Army and the National Guard on the eve of World War I. Need to add setion with these details to the article. Damon.cluck (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Need To Get The Story Straight

The George S. Patton article's account of the "United States' first motorized vehicle attack" differs from the account of the same event in the Pancho Villa Expedition article. The differences are not mere problems of style or word choice; rather facts differ.

According to George_S._Patton#Punitive_Expedition_into_Mexico: "Conducting the United States' first motorized vehicle attack, then-Lieutenant Patton with ten soldiers of the 6th Infantry Regiment used three Dodge Brothers Touring cars"

According to Pancho_Villa_Expedition#1stmotorraid "With fifteen men and three Dodge armored cars, Patton led America's first armored vehicle attack"

So according to the former:

Troops in addition to Patton: 10.

Type of cars used: Dodge Brothers Touring cars.

Type of historic "first" for US forces: motorized vehicle attack.

And according to the latter:

Troops in addition to Patton: 15.

Type of cars used: Dodge armored cars.

Type of historic "first" for US forces: armored vehicle attack.

I'm time-strapped lately and this isn't exactly a high-priority item. I hope another editor can figure out the proper figures and facts some day. Cheers.

Cramyourspam (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture choice

Let's find a better picture for the page. The current photo is a racist cartoon. I don't think it's a very good visual representation for the event. A campaign map would be more suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntyhunt (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep it. the cartoon reveals a great deal about American attitudes and stereotypes--powerful forces motivating public opinion at the time. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your point and feel that there is a place for it somewhere in the article. Nonetheless I feel that it's in poor taste as a choice for the main image. It's antiquated propaganda. That has a place in the discourse, but it must be appropriately framed; otherwise it risks being taken at face value. Thoughts? Huntyhunt (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)