Talk:Battle of the Alamo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal for revamping background section

I'd like to go section by section and get agreement, then put that into a draft that will eventually replace portions of this article. Revamping the background and prelude sections won't necessarily require more research, as this is all information already in Texas Revolution.

We could tighten the background section. My proposal is below. The first paragraphs is taken from the Battle of San Patricio and Texas Revolution, both of which just reached FA status, and primarily uses Davis and Hardin, with some from Lack. It puts the revolution in context - while there were many other reasons to make the Texians unhappy, they took action at this particular time in the broader context of what was going on across the Mexican nation. They were not the only state/region to revolt, just the only successful one.

I'd like to move information about the Tornel Decree and the Army of Operations to the next section (Prelude). That section should also include some information about the Texian army makeup from Paul Lack's book (that the Texas residents went home and newly arrived adventurers from US joined the Texian army in large numbers).

The rest is rewritten from the current article. The descriptions of the Alamo come from Edmondson and Myers, which are not great sources (Myers is ollllld). However, this is about information that isn't really controversial. Anyone know of a better source with descriptions of the grounds?

Under President Antonio López de Santa Anna, the Mexican government began to shift away from a federalist model to a more centralized government. The increasingly dictatorial policies, including the revocation of the Constitution of 1824 in early 1835, incited federalists throughout the nation to revolt. The Mexican army quickly put down revolts in the Mexican interior, including a brutal suppression of militias in Oaxaca and Zacatecas. Unrest continued in the Mexican state Coahuila y Tejas. The portion of the state that bordered the United States was known as Texas and was populated primarily by poorly-assimilated English-speaking immigrants, called Texians. As settlers debated whether to favor independence, a return to federalism, or the status quo, military commanders requested reinforcements, fearing an imminent revolt.

Reinforcements, led by Santa Anna's brother-in-law, General Martín Perfecto de Cos, arrived in late September. Several weeks later, the Texians took up arms in what became known as the Texas Revolution. In October, Texians declared themselves part of a state independent from Coahuila and created a provisional state government. By the end of the year, all Mexican troops had been expelled from Texas.

When Mexican troops departed the de facto capital of the province, San Antonio de Béxar, Texian soldiers established a garrison at the Alamo Mission, a former Spanish religious outpost which the Mexican Army had converted to a makeshift fort. Described by Santa Anna as an "irregular fortification hardly worthy of the name", the Alamo had been designed to withstand an attack by native tribes, not an artillery-equipped army. The complex sprawled across 3 acres (1.2 ha), providing almost 1,320 feet (400 m) of perimeter to defend. An interior plaza was bordered on the east by the chapel and to the south by a one-story building known as the Low Barracks. A wooden palisade stretched between these two buildings. The two-story Long Barracks extended north from the chapel. At the northern corner of the east wall stood a cattle pen and horse corral. The walls surrounding the complex were at least 2.75 feet (0.84 m) thick and ranged from 9–12 ft (2.7–3.7 m) high.

To compensate for the lack of firing ports, Texian engineer Green B. Jameson constructed catwalks to allow defenders to fire over the walls, a method that left the rifleman's upper body exposed. Mexican forces had left behind 19 cannons, which Jameson installed along the walls. A large 18-pounder had arrived in Texas with the New Orleans Greys. Jameson positioned this cannon in the southwest corner of the compound. He boasted to Texian Army commander Sam Houston that the Texians could "whip 10 to 1 with our artillery".

What do you think? Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Reads well to me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Karanacs, I did a comparison on what you wrote above with the current version, sentence by sentence, etc. etc. I think it's a good improvement over the current version, and is much clearer for readers who aren't that familiar with the history and its players. In regards to the description of the grounds, I haven't seen the Edmondson and Myers version and don't know their sources. But for a comparison, Adina De Zavala put out a 1917 book that has letters from Green Jamison and has "Old References - 1836". It's actually quite detailed. Start on P. 19 LCCN 18001899. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs. I hate to be a spoil-sport, but Costeloe, Michael, P. The Central Republic, 1835-1846 (1993) and Fowler would appear to disagree with the opening and second sentences of your proposal. (I have not read Costeloe, but I will try to track it down because I am interested in this divergent point of view. I only include it b/c Fowler cites it). It would seem that these 2 historians dissociate Santa Anna from Centralism. According to them, the real agents behind Centralism were Tornel and Bocanegra. Also, for the most part, the Mexican people supported Centralism. Please see my notes on "Santa Anna of Mexico" (2007) by Fowler. If you care, let me know what you think, but it's not necessary. I am not challenging your sources; I only wish to make you aware of these two because they differ from the traditional view. If you are already familiar with them or consider them fringe, then please disregard. Thanks. MiztuhX (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia article Batalla de El Álamo

Talk:Battle of the Alamo/Google translation-Spanish language Battle of the Alamo for comparison. The Spanish language version is Batalla de El Álamo - We know Google Translate is imperfect. Please do not edit the translation. It is for reference purposes only.

They pretty much use the same sources we do. The only Mexican source of theirs is Delgado de Cantú, Gloria M. (2006). Historia de México: el procedimiento de gestación de un pueblo. México: Pearson Educación. ISBN 978-970-260-797-7.. — Maile (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2015

The lede is clearly missing a conclusion to the battle. Somewhere between these three sentences, the finale should be summarized: "Defenders unable to reach these points were slain by the Mexican cavalry as they attempted to escape. Between five and seven Texians may have surrendered; if so, they were quickly executed. Most eyewitness accounts reported between 182 and 257 Texians died, while most historians of the Alamo agree that around 600 Mexicans were killed or wounded." Banedon (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please wait a few days to get comments from other editors. If no one responds please reactivate and I will make the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection

@TomStar81: I would like to unprotect the article. Having reviewed the history I do not see any edit warring in July, just edits made in good faith which were then reverted wholesale. I don't think protection is preventing any damage or disruption here. What is your opinion on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Editing warring is paired with content dispute in the protection I chose since it was a little bit of both. While I concur that the article has cooled down I remain somewhat concerned here because I do not see that the original issue(s) have been worked out on the talk page, which was in point of fact the whole reason for the protection in the first place. Dispute resolution discussions suggested that one editor was in disagreement with several others over how to improve the article, although it appears that both sides have since moved on to other matters of interest. Since three of the original four involved in the dispute process haven't edited in the last 30 days I'll lose the protection on good faith grounds, however I will - repeat WILL - put it right back up if the content dispute flare ups in the article again. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problems persist

Since they were equal participants in the Battle of the Alamo, I think providing more information about the Mexican side would improve this article.

The language used to describe the actions of the Mexican military leaves much to be desired and is obviously slanted towards the Texians.

As a snapshot in time, the Battle of the Alamo was a resounding victory for Santa Anna and Mexico. It was a decisive rout of the Texian defenders on Mexican territory, but one would not know this by reading this article as currently written. Furthermore, the tone needs to be modified, as Santa Anna was not "cruel" but rather acting under strict military discipline. Little to no credit is given to the Mexican army for its high morale and resolute bravery in battle, despite little to no training and inadequate supplies. No mention is made of the impact the good news of Santa Anna's initial victory produced on the Mexican populace.

"Buoyed by a desire for revenge, the Texians defeated the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, on April 21, 1836, ending the revolution." This sentence should be placed at the end of the introductory paragraph, as it puts the cart before the horse, so to speak. Also, Santa Anna's overconfidence and dividing of his forces is the more telling reason why his army lost, and should be mentioned to balance out the narrative, since we are talking about 2 sides in a battle. Or is this just the Texian version?

"On February 23, approximately 1,500 Mexicans marched into San Antonio de Béxar as the first step in a campaign to retake Texas." The context for the Mexican side was that Texas already belonged to Mexico. Why "retake" what is already yours? According to Santa Anna, the purpose was to quell a rebellion of disloyal and ungrateful traitors, the leaders of which were Mexican citizens, like he had done in Zacatecas. The narrative tone used here is one of an epic battle, which fits Texian's overblown account of the event, but to common Mexicans, it was just another battle in a faraway part of the country.

"Travis wrote multiple letters [to whom?] pleading for more men and supplies, but fewer than 100 reinforcements arrived there [why?]." Needs much more exposition.

"As Mexican soldiers scaled the walls, most of the Texian soldiers withdrew into interior buildings."... I suggest adding: where both sides engaged in fierce hand-to-hand combat.

"Several noncombatants [who?] were sent [by whom?] to Gonzales to spread word of the Texian defeat [to whom? other Texians, Tejanos, reporters, etc?]"

"Within Mexico, the battle has often been overshadowed by events from the Mexican–American War of 1846–48." Really? The only consequence of the Battle of the Alamo for Mexicans is that it was of no consequence? I have read that there were definite short, mid, and long-term consequences of the Battle of the Alamo, not only in Mexico but in all of Latin America...

After reviewing the opening paragraph, which acts like a thesis for the whole article, my question to other editors would be: Do you think providing a more balanced Mexican view would improve or detract from this article? Let's discuss.

MiztuhX (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My edit on 4 January 2016...

...was based on WP:LINKCLARITY and WP:SPECIFICLINK as it doesn't seem to make sense for the target to be different from the anchor, as Mexican Texas and Texas refer to very different forms of government and time periods. Opinions, anyone?MiztuhX (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC) MiztuhX (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC) (forgot to sign prev).

Reviewing the article, one reason for not including a wikilink for Mexican Texas is due to it already being included in Further information subheading. However, is it logical to refer to Texas in a section about Mexican Texas? Surely, there is an overlap of the protagonists who were Mexican citizens with American sensibilities, whose thoughts and actions were in flux, and would later have an impact on the form of government. However, the borderlines at this time clearly show the area as pertaining to Mexican Texas, the WP article of which also describes the dynamic alluded to above. MiztuhX (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC) MiztuhX (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Questionable source probably not RS infesting the article

See discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Texas_Revolution#Noobie_Editor_Question_about_deleting_a_Reference_book.

It appears the same problem exists on this article - a lot of bad material, historically inaccurate, resulting from a book that's more fiction than fact getting inserted into the references list. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Followup: Based on that discussion I'm going to start WP:BOLDly cleaning this up. Looks like the content was added by an IP sneakily. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: Thanks for your notification re:questionable source at Texas Revolution article. I'll check it out. MiztuhX (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Slavery issue should be mentioned in Background

Within her argument of settler colonialism, Dunbar-Ortiz in "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States" on pp.126-127 suggests that slavery was one- if not the main- reason for the Texas Revolution, an issue over which the Battle of the Alamo was fought. Mexican sources (like Zoraida-Vásquez) also support this view.

• (See Mexican Sources archived talk page to view her perspective on the role slavery played in the events leading up to the Texas Revolution. In her words: "The Texan 'fight for liberty' was just a ruse to further slavery.") MiztuhX (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This central issue is summed up by Dunbar-Ortiz:

"The Republic of Mexico opened a door to U.S. domination by granting land to Anglo immigrants. During the first decade of Mexican independence, some thirty thousand Anglo-American farmers and plantation owners, along with their slaves, poured into Texas, receiving development land grants. By the time Texas became a U.S. state in 1845, Anglo settlers numbered 160,000.

"Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, which affected the Anglo-American settlers quest for wealth in building plantations worked by enslaved Africans. They lobbied the Mexican government for a reversal of the ban and gained only a one-year extension to settle their affairs and free their bonded workers- the government refused to legalize slavery.

"The settlers decided to secede from Mexico, initiating the famous and mythologized 1836 Battle of the Alamo, where the mercenaries James Bowie and David Crockett and slave owner William Travis were killed. Although technically an Anglo-American loss, the siege of the Alamo served to stir Anglo patriotic passions, and within a month at the decisive battle of San Jacinto, Mexico handed over the province.

"...One of the first acts of the pro-slavery independent government was to establish a counterinsurgency force that- as its name, the Texas Rangers, suggests- followed the "American way of war" in destroying Indigenous towns, eliminating Native nations in Texas, pursuing ethnic cleansing, and suppressing protest from Tejanos, former Mexican citizens."

Since slavery was an important economic issue among Anglo settlers and defenders of the Alamo, it should definitely be noted in the Background section of this article. There are many academic sources that support this assertion.

The ancillary point should also be mentioned, that the objective of the Texian revolution, and for which the Battle of the Alamo was fought, was eventually achieved: the establishment of a pro-slavery Texian government, with its corresponding legacy of racism.

MiztuhX (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbers: Killed vs. Wounded

"Most eyewitness accounts reported between 182 and 257 Texians died, while most historians of the Alamo agree that around 600 Mexicans were killed or wounded." Well, which one is it, killed or wounded? I believe there are specific numbers that state how many were killed and how many were wounded. It is important to provide an accurate tally and not some exaggerated number in order to not give the false impression that a small number of "heroic" Texians were able to kill an exuberant number of Mexicans in a show of supreme bravery and sacrifice (as befits the legend).

In "With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution," de la Peña states that "the enemy dead were 150 volunteers," 32 from Gonzalez and 20 from Béjar (total: 202). (p.54) On p.46, he states that the Mexican army lost "more than 300 brave men" in the assault. The editor, Perry, summarizes the totals given by Santa Anna as 600 Texians killed, including Bowie and Travis, and Mexican losses as 70 dead and 300 wounded (total: 370); Juan Andrade noted 260 Mexican dead and 51 wounded (total: 311). (p.54) Most of the Mexican wounded died from lack of medical care after the assault. MiztuhX (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The documents found on the Alamo defenders by the Mexican soldiers listed the Texian forces as consisting of 182 men; however, the number of the Texian fallen, as counted by the Mexican army, was 253. (according to de la Peña)(p.54)MiztuhX (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In "The Alamo Reader," Hansen states that Filisola supported Santa Anna's figures by listing 60 dead and 251 wounded but contradicts himself in the same document by saying more Mexican soldiers died than Texian (p.400). Most telling, Filisola, Almonte, Caro, Sánchez, de la Peña, and others confirm the neglect of medical services in the Mexican army that resulted in the increase of casualties after the battle. This number may have inadvertently been ascribed to the total of numbers killed, when in reality they were part of the wounded, thus artificially inflating the number killed, a controversy which is not mentioned in the WP article. MiztuhX (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Metric Conversion?

I'm not good on converting metric/English. How many acres was the Alamo COMPLEX in 1836 & how many is in the monument today? Also, I found different values for the distance from the mission to the town of San Antonio in 1836. Just how far was it? CFLeon (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

After a more careful reading of the article, I found the value for the mission in 1836, but not for the current monument.CFLeon (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

CFLeon Have you tried contacting The Alamo mission people about that information? It's distance from San Antonio today is "zero inches", because it's surrounded by the city on all sides, right across the street, etc. I don't know how many acres it has today, but I'm sure if you click on the Connect option on the site I just gave you, somebody can probably give you those details. — Maile (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory information in 'Susanna Dickinson's witness accounts'

Her accounts says that, "She never saw [her husband] again, nor did she ever see [her husband's] body." However, the account also says that, " Santa Anna had her identify all the bodies [...] including her husband." That seems contradictory. Politis (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see that stated in this article? — Maile (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of source from January 2016

I have reverted the removal of text by Finnusertop 1 because it had a citation needed tag since January. I don't know of any time limit a sentence can be left in an article with such a tag. Most of them stay until the information is provided. However, this caused me to look at how the original citation for that was removed. In January, blocked sock Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz removed the citation and added the citation needed tag. 2. It helps to do a little checking before removal of content. I have re-added the citation. Please do not just arbitrarily remove content from this article without discussing. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Alamo's texans

The flag on Fort Alamo like saw in several movies is a tricolor flag like in Italy or Mexico with the year 1824 in the middle. Is a true or a mythe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.62.135.212 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure. The tricolor flag is what was described by Colonel Juan Almonte of the Mexican army. It is likely there was more than one flag being flown over the Alamo. You might want to read Flags of the Texas Revolution. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There are NO contemporary sources about the flag (a Mexican report mentions seeing one from San Antonio as they arrived, but no description). Most articles have the Alamo flag as being the one you mention, which is the Mexican flag with "1824" replacing the eagle. (The reference is to the 1824 Constitution.) But the Texians had basically tossed the notion of remaining with Mexico months earlier, although the formal vote occurred only on March 3, 1836. Travis had bought a flag, but no description is known. The ONLY flag known at the Alamo for certain was the blue (azure) flag of the New Orleans Grays, which Santa Anna sent back to Mexico City, where it remains. See A Time to Stand (Walter Lord) for a discussion of the topic (including a photo of the New Orleans Grays flag, where it is kept in Mexico City). CFLeon (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Referring to my original comment about what Almonte described, this is from his journal, pages 366-367 takes place on February 23, 7:30 a.m.: "...a half league from Bexar, the division halted on the hills of Alazan ... The enemy, as soon as the march of the division was seen, hoisted the tri-colored flag [of Mexico] with two stars, designed to represent [the desired two states of] Coahuila and Texas. The President with all his staff advanced to the Campo Santo (burying ground). The enemy lowered the flag and fled, and possession was taken of Bexar without firing a shot." Maybe that happened outside the Alamo, since it was before the actual battle. But they were raising that flag somewhere pretty near the Alamo. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Almonte, Juan Nepomuceno; Jackson, Jack; Wheat, John (2005). Almonte's Texas: Juan N. Almonte's 1834 Inspection, Secret Report & Role in the 1836 Campaign. Austin, Texas: Texas State Historical Association. ISBN 9780876112076.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017

MEMES Billy G (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - please specify the changes you want made. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

I think it should be noted that only the Mexicans living in the state of Texas were actual Texans. The anglo-invaders who claim to be Texas are not, in fact, Texans. Instead, they are Tennesseans or something else. Texas, or Tejas, is a Spanish name given to the colonized territory already occupied by native indigenous people of Anahuac. Some of these native people will later call themselves Mexicans and be represented by the government of Mexico. The information given in their post is misleading, incorrect, and is a whitewashing of the true history of this content. 2605:E000:1313:4045:B404:9EE9:BCA:28A1 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

Please change "Illegal Immigrants from the United States" in the first paragraph to "Immigrants from the United States" - if the immigrants were "illegal aliens" from the US to Texas, this needs to be sourced and cited. To my knowledge, the Tennessee Volunteers who came to Texas and died at the Alamo were legal immigrants to Texas. 165.225.34.126 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: the lede is just a summary of the later content, which is sourced DannyS712 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

165.225.34.126 (talk) Can you share your source? I would be interested in reading it. Thanks. MiztuhX (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the "Tennessee Volunteers" and all other Americans who immigrated at that time, without permission to join a legal settlement, were absolutely illegal aliens, by the laws of MEXICO, of which TEJAS was still a state. If the "Tennessee Volunteers" had been lawfully recognized by the United States, it would have been an act of war, as the legal international border was currently at the Sabine and Red Rivers. What you suggest as revisionist history would be analogous to the illegals wandering into San Diego with AK47s, signing a piece of paper declaring San Diego an independent nation governed by themselves, and opening fire on the local police and any resident military forces. Followed by requesting backup and weapons from Tijuana. GalantFan (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That view is not represented in the article, GalantFan (talk), the agenda of the U.S. to not recognize American volunteers to avoid an act of war. This also shows that the U.S. was complicit in indirectly aiding the rebels despite professing a veneer of neutrality. Please provide your source so we may discuss possibly adding to article. MiztuhX (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is just about the battle of Alamo. There is already extensive documentation, including on Wikipedia, regarding Mexican law and immigration policy of the time. By 1835, less than 20% of American residents in Mexico had entered legally to join lawful colonies, convert to Catholicism, and pay taxes. As of April 1830, all new immigration outside of previously permitted colonies was forbidden. Americans joining the battles were there lawfully only in the way that ISIS welcomed volunteers to establish and "defend" its territory, or in the same way that the Bundys in Oregon welcomed armed volunteers to "defend" "their" park ranger station in 2016. Also, Mexico had already banned slavery, and a significant percentage of the farm and ranch population of the legal and illegal settlers were slaves, and that was another major reason for the rebellion, cracking down on enforcement.

Also, the flood of armed American volunteers that won the war to capture Texas, came AFTER the Alamo, from extensive publicity about this battle, the death of Davy Crockett, and the new take-no-prisoners policy. The primary fighters in this battle, and the majority who "declared independence" were farmers and ranchers who had come to squat on land outside the legal colonies. GalantFan (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Add a closing parenthesis after (Spanish: [las ˈsjete ˈleʝes]) ArcaneCraeda (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Kuru (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2017

Change "Texians" to "Texans." 76.175.19.158 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - it is correct as is, see Texians. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Texians may be "correct" but is a relatively unused word. see https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=texan,texian Also anecdotally, I grew up in Texas and took multiple classes on Texas history both in grade school and University of Texas... still never heard this word. MOS:CONFUSE and MOS:JARGON suggest "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it..."2601:844:8000:47D8:B00C:25CA:709D:ACE9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Need to establish why the battle was actually started and it's part that it played in slavery. That was a huge part to play in the battle of the alamo. 174.253.10.5 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The role that expanding Confederate racism and slavery as institutions into Texas from other southern states as the leading cause of the Battle of the Alamo definitely needs to be addressed in this article. In light of BLM, acccording to Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra, professor of history at the University of Texas Austin, the Alamo represents "the first Confederate monument to slavery." MiztuhX (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I submit this revision to the opening sentence as a suggestion and/or guideline in the hope that it may provide balance/inclusion to both the Mexican and African-American POVs: The Battle of the Alamo (February 23 – March 6, 1836) was a pivotal event in the Texas Revolution. Following a 13-day siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio López de Santa Anna reclaimed the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas, United States) in a decisive military victory that resulted not only in the defeat of the rebellious Texian and American filibusters but also the enforcement of the abolition of slavery on Texan (Mexican) soil, as affirmed by Mexican law.MiztuhX (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The language seem too non-neutral and non-encyclopedic. The aftermath of the battle should not be described before the battle... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Will continue to work on it. MiztuhX (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse a non-logged user. Santa Ana himself had a chequered history as a leader, and it is contextually important that this not be viewed as within the American free/slave lens. Several Mexican states had rebelled against Santa Ana at this time - not just Texas. The article this presents a false picture of the conflict skewed towards US history and omitting the Mexican history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:6301:4100:1C7A:632C:69E7:2C26 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

98.114.254.117 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Add the Texas flag 

I'm sorry, this flag did not exist at the time of this battle. Kuru (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

El Deguello

No mention of the song _supposedly_ played during the battle? Degüello#Meaning_of_the_title 2001:56A:FA85:3800:30D4:431D:D62E:3D87 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

de La Pena

It would seem some mention of the contending accounts of Crockett's death (and five or six other captured and then executed) and the de La Pena account would be warranted. 2603:90D8:0:2F83:2451:CDA3:3B4A:F732 (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

The battle of the Alamo

The opening paragraph mentions documented justification for the revolution to uphold slavery.

I think that is one person’s interpretation in an attempt to misrepresent history to justify their own agenda.

The Texas Revolution was not largely inspired by a desire to uphold slavery in the state/territory, but rather due to the central government control enforced under Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, among a long list of other reasons. Source: https://sanantonioreport.org/carey-latimore-texas-revolution-slavery/?amp

To say that the Texas revolution was mostly due to slavery is a misrepresentation of history, and the way the article begins leads readers to believe that to be the case. Please correct this.

2600:1700:E44:7510:C1:E1D5:E22C:B5DF (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

This page perpetuates the attempt to conceal the origins of the Alamo and Texan independence in the desire to maintain and extend slavery for profit. Indeed slave owners and those who supported slavery were the defenders of the Alamo. Surely it is time to allow the truth to be told. Please remove the protection and stop the censorship. 81.147.143.164 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be covered in the first paragraph and in the history section. No other specific edits are suggested. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)