Talk:Mexican Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] What this article should include
This is a huge, huge topic which requires considerable work. I've been afraid to touch it until someone is willing to help... anyone up for it?
Properly I think this should cover a period vaguely beginning towards the end of the Diaz regime, extending to 1930 when the PRI came to power. Basically what I think it needs is:
- Discussion of the Porfiriata
- The various successions - Maderistas, Carrancistas, Obregonistas, etc.
- The social revolution - Zapata and land reform, efforts at destruction of the hacienda/peonage system, the end of debt slavery
- The United States response
- The rise of the PRI
- The place of the revolution in modern mexican culture?
I am a complete novice on Mexican history but I know good writing and an evenhanded approach. This is neither. It reads like an average high school term paper. You might want to think about starting this article over from scratch. It could be easier than trying to repair it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loris Buccola (talk • contribs) .
-
-
- Because they're saying that the article needs to be refounded. I agree, I think that the outline they give is pretty decent. Though I'd flesh it out at the end - after US response, I'd have: Constitution of 17, Political Succession (rise of PRI), application of constitution of 17 (anticlericism, cristeros, eventual real land reform... briefly), and place of rev in mod cult. So - I'm not able to devote a lot of effort or knowledge to this article, but I'd like to encourage a refounding at Mexican Revolution/Rewrite.--Homunq 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] First aerial dogfight ever
The first dogfight was during the Mexican Revolutiuon between two pilots firing at eachother with their handguns. Make a note of it!
-G
[edit] The extent of the Revolution
_____Graft writes that he considers the Revolution ending in the 30's. I don't know that much about history, but my mother, Don~a Marie-Therese Padilla Santoscoy de Creighton, daughter of el licenciado Don Jorge Padilla, told me that in the 40's her father, she, and her sister Magda were still being persecuted. _____You see, my grandfather the attorney Jorge Padilla, according to my mother, was one of the founders of PAN(Partido de Accion Nacional). I don't know the extent of his contributions, but when I mentioned the name of my grandfather to a stranger in Chicago, in 1985, he was astounded, so it seemed, and pointed a finger repeatedly in my chest, saying"Do you realize who your grandfather was? Do you know?" _____My mother also told me that he, my grandfather (abuelo) had been a Cristero. This was an organization some of whose members took to the hills, so to speak, to hide and conduct a guerrilla against the PRI and government (one and the same, in a manner of speaking). ______Don Jorge Padilla had a house in Guadalajara, where my mother was born, in 1924. He was born, I think I remember, in 1894. Anyway, she said that once, the government sent the Army to close the church in La Barca where my grandfather and grandmother had their country home. My grandfather helped to organize the people so that they would fill the church with all their families, even the children. So many attended that the soldiers were compelled to back off. _______But apparently someone high in power hated my grandfather very much, for someone advised him that he was on a "death list." So was the Archbishop of Guadalajara. My grandfather and another man, I think an attorney, helped to smuggle the Archbishop out of Guadalajara, go by train to Los Angeles. Marie-Therese (she went by "Don~a Terri" or "Don`a Teresita" among her friends and acquaintances told me that this was the only time she knew that my grandfather had ever carried a gun, which I infer was some sort of pistol. ________My grandfather and his co-conspirator founded one of the first grocery stores in L.A. which carried Mexican foods, according to my mother. Because she had been arrested along with my aunt, Tia Magda, the two sisters soon joined him later in Los Angeles. ________You may wish to verify this by contacting Mr. Carlos Padilla who resides in a suburb of San Bernardino, or leaving a message for Mr. Pete Creighton at the Alumni Office of Knox College, in Galesburg, Illinois. My mother is still alive, and may welcome an opportunity to pass this piece of history to an historian or student of history, as she is still of sound mind, as of this posting. _________Incidentally, one of my great-uncles or uncles is still in touch with the President of Mexico, Mr. Fox, according to my mother, but I don't remember who it is. I'm fairly sure that some of us support Mr. Fox to this day.
Per the translation request, I'm translating the Spanish version. Information in the English version not in the Spanish version will be merged in afterwards (original article is commented out at the end). Mgmei 05:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I've done the merge -- Jmabel 07:52, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Rock on. Mgmei 17:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that Graft's suggestions above would still be a good guide to the desirable eventual scope of this article. -- Jmabel 07:55, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] List
More things to mention
- Plan de San Luis de Potosí
- Plan de Guadalupe
- Plan de Ayala
- Ejidos
- Picture of Diego Rivera Mural (There's one related to the Mexican Rev, in mind. Can't find it)
Any more to add? Kimun 03:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The first two could easily be folded into the article. The Plan de Ayala obviously belongs in a (missing) section discussing the Zapatistas/Villistas, Magon brothers, etc. Maybe ejidos do as well. Are there any Diego Rivera paintings in the public domain? Probably a whole bunch of his would do... Graft 05:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] US Intervention
I'm inclined to say that a lot of the US stuff should be folded into the article, not broken off into its own section. Henry Lane Wilson, for example, should probably be discussed along with the overthrow of Madero. Does that sound like a good idea? Graft 18:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It probably should. No great problem integrating those 4 incidents into the chronological narrative (and the article's a bit sparse on events between Huerta and the Qro. constitutional convention anyway, which is where 2 of them would go). Are you volunteering? –Hajor 19:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs work
Oh dear.. as much as I like all the new info.. it needs a serious copyedit... I'll try to help but it would be nice to get some other people in on it... Sasquatch t|c 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, the recent additions read much like an essay and are plagued by weasel words, which don't do much for maintaining a NPOV. Sources are not cited and I fear that parts of it may even be copyvio (as some of the recently created related articles happened to be). Somehow I get the impression all recent additions are part of a school project. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
A good place to start would be to add some dates. I am studying for a test right now and looked here for some quick info. I am at a loss as to when it started, when it ended, how many people died, etc. If nobody does it in a week or two, I can research it and add that part in (its finals week). Epachamo 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Francisco I. Madero in 1910, stated that he would be running in the next election against Diaz for leadership of Mexico. In order to ensure Madero did not win, Diaz had him thrown in jail and declared himself the winner. Madero soon escaped and fled for a short period of time to the United States. On November 20th, 1910, Madero issued the Plan de San Luis Potosi, which declared the Diaz’s regime illegal and initiated a revolution against Porfirio Diaz.
- That is the first paragraph of the MADERO section and it's states that the revolution began on November 20th, 1910 issuing the Plan de San Luis Potosi. This was a class project and hardly ever this group of 15 people ever agreed on anything and one of our concerns is how long the revolution lasted. Some said it's still going on and some said that it ended in 1920 and 1940. The decision made within this group, because many of the people could not agree as to when it ended, created part of this webpage, to let the reader decide for themselves as to when it ended or if it's still occuring. However seeing as this was a group project, certain people did certain sections of the revolution. One person concentrated on Madero and Huerta, while another person wrote the section on Zapata and another on the Mexican Catholic Church. Discussion was at a minimal when finanlizing the project. Sorry for the inconvience this may have caused you. Few people got along and few people tried. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.177.232 (talk • contribs) 21 April 2006.
[edit] I'll see what I can do.
I'm searching google for pages on this subject. I'll do my best to edit out the fluff and trash to make it readable. Wish me luck.
[edit] Reference websites.
I've found somethings that may help.
http://www.mexonline.com/revolution.html broken link
http://www.mexconnect.com/MEX/austin/revolution.html
http://www.ic.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/mex-davi.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588457/Mexican_Revolution.html
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Bunker/7475/mexrevtimeline.htm
[edit] Huge portion lost.
I edited part of the first paragraph, left the page, then came back and a huge portion is missing from it. It was much longer and contained pictures. I looked in the history and it said I was the only one to edit it. What happened?
[edit] Moved from article (user's editorial comment on line 7)
(the latter part of this sentence is commentary, and unsupported by evidence either economic or otherwise. Those who have been to the non-tourist portions of Mexico from the United States can very easily see a stark difference in quality of life for their 'peasants'. For being founded by an Objectivist, articles seem to contain quite the socalist tripe)
[edit] Imperialism
This is not supported by other statements in the paragraph, the full article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_the_Mexican_Revolution), or the Zimmermann Telegram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram) article. The United States vowed to protect the lives of its citizens by use of its military if necessary. It also used diplomatic pressure in an attempt to solve the problem, as countries that are bordering another country in a civil war are apt to do. Also, a foreign force launched an attack on United States soil, against barracks of the United States military and US civilians. I fail to see how the actions of the US in this context would qualify as imperialism, informal or otherwise. Discuss here if you disagree. OR, provide reasoning and sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.65.71 (talk • contribs) 19 May 2006.
- The use of the word imperialism is debatable (and might not be the right one). We should first try to define what that word means to you. Again, you should remember that history would be told differently in the US than it would be in Mexico.. Just to give you an example using the three points you just mentioned:
- First, the US vowed to protect the lives of its citizens. Yet, by welcoming Victoriano Huerta into the embassy for a "private parlour" and morally supporting his coup d'état, the ambassdor was protecting the priviliges of its citizens (mainly oil companies that were threatened by the rced elsewhere, I agree that this article needs sources). As a result of the incident and liberal laws of Madero, the creation of unions and the possibility of nationalization) and not the lives of its citizens per se. Mexicans never threatened the lives of the few citizens that lived in Mexican soil at the turn of the 20th century.
-
- How was supporting a murderous backstabbing thug like Huerta helping anyone? Huerta could have easily turned on the Americans the way he did Madero. Woodrow Wilson got rid of Henry Lane Wilson as one of his first acts as President. Tubezone 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of using diplomatic pressure if not to help the faction of the revolution that you like? The US did not offer impartial talks and did not act as a mediator, which would be a reasonable way to help a bordering country.
-
- Actually, there WERE talks, known as the ABC conferences, that took place in Canada. They were a failure: Carranza was not one to negociate on what he considered principles. Tubezone 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you call a small numbered, independent, loose and poorly armed raid headed by Pancho Villa (who wasn't even part of the government) a "foreign force" that would legitimize an invasion or the attacks to the port of Veracruz? I fail to see how his raids qualify as "foreing forces attaking barracks of the US military" unless, of course you are referring to the Mexicans fighting back the siege of Veracruz. --Alonso 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The occupation of Veracruz predated the Villa raid by two years, by that time, the gringos had departed. Villa himself approved the Veracruz occupation as merely a problem for Huerta.Tubezone 07:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- "We should first try to define what that word means to you."
-
- Not necessarily. The goal isn't to show that one editor is wrong; the goal is to show that a claim in the article is appropriate (with sources, NPOV, and clear wording). However, I appreciate your willingness to hear my opinions.
- "Again, you should remember that history would be told differently in the US than it would be in Mexico."
-
- That's fine. If there are appropriate sources from Mexico, translated into English, or sources written from the Mexican point of view, feel free to add them.
-
- Also, I think "informal imperialism" could probably considered "weasel words" because the claim is trying to avoid direct confrontation by saying "informal" but still alleging imperialism. If that term is to be used, I think it needs a source and that source should define or describe what "informal imperialism" is. Also, the article states: "The U.S. decided that they would react to the revolution through intervention only if Mexican military endangered the lives or property of North Americans." This relates to life, liberty, and property as described by John Locke and Adam Smith. To call the U.S.'s protecting the lives of its citizens abroad (see events of January 11, 1916), the property rights of its citizens in foreign countries or in the United States, of private citizens or oil companies (however insidious some consider them), "imperialism", seems a inappropriate.
- "The US did not offer impartial talks and did not act as a mediator, which would be a reasonable way to help a bordering country."
-
- Yes, you are right. That course of action would have showed impartiality and would have been A reasonable way to act (and possibly the most reasonable, depending on your POV). However, impartial "talks" with "mediation" is a relatively new (or at least rare) phenomenon when viewed against thousands of years of written history. Neighboring countries have supported one side or another, in internal wars and multiple-country wars through alliances, provisions of military supplies, stategic marriages (with royalty), etc., and we would hesitate to label such actions as imperialism (informal or otherwise).
- "private parlour"
-
- I cannot find that quote in any of the articles. Was this from one of the external sources?
- "Do you call a small numbered, independent, loose and poorly armed raid headed by Pancho Villa...a "foreign force...?"
-
- Certainly. This article and this section suggest that, according to most sources, 1500 of Villa's men participated in the raid, which included the murder 17 (or 18) people. Other sources suggest smaller numbers participated in the raid (although they are in the same ballpark), which I would still consider a "foreign force". Were they an "army"? No, and that's why I chose to call them a "foreign force" instead.
- "(who wasn't even part of the government)"
-
- True, he was not a part of the federal government, but he was fighting against the current government, for a place (or power) in that government. Also, was he not the Governor of Chihuahua, a state that borders the United States, starting in 1913? I'm not sure when the official ending date his for his tenure as provisional governor, but he certainly wielded a lot of military and political influence at the time of the raid.
- "...that would legitimize an invasion or the attacks to the port of Veracruz"
-
- The misunderstanding in the Tampico Affair was on May 9, 1914. This occurred when Mexican soldiers arrested U.S. sailors, including "at least one taken from on board his ship, and thus from U.S. territory" (although sourced elsewhere, I agree that this article needs sources). As a result of the incident and misunderstanding, the United States THEN attacked Veracruz. The United States occupied Veracruz from April 21, 1914 to November 23, 1914. Thus, it is not possible for the U.S. to have used Villa's raid a year and a half later as justification for the events in Veracruz, and I am not arguing such a thing either.
- ""foreing forces attaking barracks of the US military unless, of course you are referring to the Mexicans fighting back the siege of Veracruz."
-
-
- Also, J. Alonso, if you have any sources that you would like to add, please do; this article could use some improvement. I think citations within the text would also be very helpful. Thanks. Ufwuct 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Split article?
This is a huge topic and could easily spread to several articles. I think the length and the sorry state of affairs is probably keeping people (me included) from helping clean up the mess. I'd suggest trimming the sections on the nature of people and movements (as opposed to the sequence of events involving them) to a bare minimum (moving stuff to the appropriate main article, including pasting it onto the talk page there if you're not up to a merge), adding a section on military history (totally absent), adding links to the post-1917 conflicts (cruzero etc.). Do I hear a second? --Homunq 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't looked too closely, but its only just over 30K, which is usually a little before where we tend to split unless there is a clear, easy split to make. - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expert help
I'm not sure why the request for expert help was removed from the article. It seems to have happened somewhere in a long exchange fighting vandalism the last couple of weeks. Was this done on purpose? If so why? - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lists to be added
Here's some suggestions for lists appropriate to be linked to this article:
List of artists and art works related to the Mexican Revolution
Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, Frida Kahlo, just to name a few.
List of literature related to the Mexican Revolution
Works of Octavio Paz, obviously. John Reed. Reed's book Insurgent Mexico is the witness account in English of Villa's battles in Chihuahua and Durango. There's dozens, or maybe hundreds, of other English and Spanish books relating to the Revolution.
List of films related to the Mexican Revolution
This list could get very long. Vamanos con Pancho Villa, Viva Villa, Viva Zapata, for starters.
[edit] Socialist slant
I find a socialist slant throughout the article. The author over stresses class struggle and the already addressed U.S. imerialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.112.199.170 (talk • contribs) 8 October 2006.
then fix it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.73.179 (talk • contribs) .
Although my knowlege and understanding of this era of Mexican history is limited, I would be suprised(if not disappointed) if these events were not examined with considerable emphasis on their ties and relationships with social reform, particularly socialism. Afterall Mexico was a country embarking on a period of growth and change during the height of the industrial age which also had a significant portion of the population living in extreme poverty under a pseudo-feudalist system. Just as it would be irresponsible to not emphasize the themes addressed by the socialist movement when discussing American or European history of this era, it's seems equally important, if not more so, to keep this in mind with respect to Mexico's history. Modern history, in my opinion, is dominated by the competing ideals and interests of capitalism and socialism. I think the words and actions of leading figures during this period make this plainly evident including T. Roosevelt, Rockefeller, Wilson, and on to FDR, Stalin, and Hitler. We should not fail to remember that during this very time numerous conflicts arose between the working class and corporate/business/governmental interests within the U.S. which had an unmistakable influence on the policy and direction of this country.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.79.6.97 (talk • contribs).
Yo, folks, chill it. There is bias here, it's the bias of any schoolbook history, in this case Mexican schoolbook history. Let's not try to yoke it to Socialism and Capitalism. This is a really really complicated and hard topic, I'd say more so than either the American or Russian revolutions (and that's saying a lot), so what we need is to take it slow and not get our blood up. --Homunq 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious as to the where and in what direction you see the bias.
[edit] Something of a mess...
... and recent edits haven't necessarily made it less so. I reverted a few recent problems, but this passage in particlar seems problematic:
Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Pancho Villa and Venustiano Carranza were all important individuals in the revolution because of the role they played in attaining a stable government in Mexico. All four leaders were important in gaining a sense of what was important to the people of Mexico and what was needed to gain stability and freedom in Mexico.
Whatever one thinks of them, Zapata and Villa do not strike me as particularly "stabilizing" forces. (Previously, and even more oddly, rather than list Zapata, this listed Victoriano Huerta, one of the most roundly hated figures in Mexican history.) But I'm no expert on the Mexican Revolution, and I hesitate to rewrite a paragraph like this that is supposed to establish an overview. Could someone else please take this on? - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Causes
The causes section is a joke. I mean Diaz was a bad guy, but its blatant POV. Also it seems like it was wqritten by a third grader. 24.94.232.13 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Martin
[edit] Ouch
Is so naive and idealized. It is unsupported by citations. I will try to help.
I agree with Graf wih all those topics but we should come up with an index: I. Causes: a). The Diaz Regime (cientificos, terratenientes). -The Diaz Regime in the North---) why Madero, Villa , Carranza, Obregon -The Diaz Regime in the South---) why Zapatista Movement (sequels) -The Diaz Regime and forgeing powers: US and Britain Mainly b). The 1910 Eleccions c) The Maderista Revolution.
II. Developments a. Madero in government an d his Porfirista Cabinet. -Discontent of Orozquistas y Zapatistas -Discontent of Porfiristas -Discontent with the US: Henry Lane Wilson, Huerta and Decena Tragica.
b. Huerta's Government -Zapata and Villa combat him.
c. Convencion -Mexico City is taken over by the troops. -Accords.
d. Constitutionalism -Obregon defeats Villa -Villa takes Columbus NM -Carranza enacts the 1917 constitution and lets the American troops in the country to pursue Villa. -Oregon rebels agaisnt Carranza. -Obregon Takes power.
III. Demise of the conflict -Sociological aspects of revolution: peasants woment, workers, railroads, even life in he camps. - Later bloody governmental elections and conflicts ended with the PRI -Legacies of the Revolution. Icluding cultural ones.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astharoth1 (talk • contribs) 21 January 2007.