United States: Texas Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Military history: North America / United States Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

' Texas Revolution' emended to ' Texan Revolution' for grammatical reasons. Some sources may have poor grammar, but many don't, so it's unjustifiable here. It's not the America Revolution, the France Revolution, or the Glory Revolution, and sadly, it ain't the Texas Revolution neether. - LlywelynII ( talk) 13:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

see Talk:Texas Revolution Karanacs ( talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm removed the inclusion of the naval skirmishes. Historians do not consider these to be battles of the Texas Revolution. The Battle of Campeche occurred in 1843, which means it was not part of the Texas Revolution (historians consider that to have ended April 21, 1836). The "Battle of Galveston Harbor" occurred in 1837, again, after the Texas Revolution had ended. That leaves the "Battle of Brazos Santiago" and the "Battle of Brazos River". I checked the Handbook of Texas online, which is published by the Texas State Historical Association, and it has articles on neither of these "battles". None of these "battles" are listed in the major scholarly works on the Texas Revolution - I've consulted Willam C. Davis's Lone Star Rising, Stephen Hardin's Texian Iliad, and many others. A search of Google books and Google scholar reveals that there are zero entries for "Battle of Brazos Santiago" or "Battle of Brazos River", implying that there has been little to no scholarly discussion of these. These should not be restored. Karanacs ( talk) 14:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

A reminder that the above is still applicable. WP should be reflecting what is covered by secondary sources, not what individual editors think is "right" or "wrong". Scholarly sources which cover the Texas Revolution do not include the naval battles. There are a handful of works that cover the naval skirmishes separately, but they aren't even mentioned at all in the rest of the works. Karanacs ( talk) 05:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

As there has been no objections or attempt by anyone else to discuss this, I'm again reverting the addition of the naval battles to this template. hr> Naval operations
Ingham Incident – San Felipe Incident – Matamoros – Natchez Incident – Brazos River – Galveston Harbor

These are not included in scholarly examinations of the Texas Revolution, so it is WP:OR of us to include them here. Additionally, some of these took place outside of the timeframe accepted by scholars for the Texas Revolution - more evidence that this is OR. I'm doing my best to discuss this on the talk page - PLEASE discuss before making this addition again. Karanacs ( talk) 18:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Karanacs, so your only reason for reverting my edits is because "some" historians don't include them in their histories. Thats like suggesting they never happened in the first place and were not part of the revolution when they obviously were. If you look at the Handbook of Texas they include the naval battles and are "named battles" or incidents. As for Campeche, that was not part of the revolution so you were right in removing the link. However, there is no reason whatsoever to remove the others. They were part of the revolution and than means they can justly be linked together by the Texas Revolution template, which is the standard for every other campaign template on wiki.-- $1LENCE D0600D ( talk) 02:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

There are two trains of thought on what should be included in this template: a) Include only named land battles [1] b) Include named land battles and naval skirmishes [2]

More opinions are sought. Karanacs ( talk) 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Notifications left at WikiProject Texas and WikiProject Military History Karanacs ( talk) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Discussion

I am opposed to including naval skirmishes for several reasons.

1. Scholars accept that the Texas Revolution occurred from October 1835 through April 21, 1836. see Handbook of Texas Most of these naval skirmishes did not take place in this time frame. Ingraham incident took place in May 1835; San Felipe incident took place in Sept 1835; the Natchez incident, Brazos River, and Galveston Harbor skirmishes took place in 1837. The article for the latter specifically states that it took place after the conclusion of the revolution.
2. Scholarly examinations of the Texas Revolution as a whole do not include naval skirmishes at all, and it is original research for us to be adding them. While a very few scholarly works mention the fledgling Texas Navy when discussing the Texas Revolution, they do not include the bulk of what is listed here.

• The handbook of Texas article on the Invincible [3], written by historians, does not claim that the April 1836 skirmish (here labelled by the made-up name Battle of Matamoros) was a battle in the Texas Revolution.
• The Handbook of Texas article on the Texas Revolution [4] does not mention a navy or ships at all

Karanacs ( talk) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

As a compromise, I could accept a single link to Texas Navy. Karanacs ( talk) 17:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Unless there are references which establish that these engagements formed a significant part of the Texas Revoluation, leaving them out of the infobox seems best. While $1LENCE D00600D is a prolific creator of good quality articles, he or she tends to try to integrate them through adding them to broad infoboxes rather than Wikilinks in the appropriate articles and edit warring to keep them in the infobox. $1LENCE D00600D: I think that it's fair to say that that community's patience with this is rapidly running out. Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Omit naval incidents - The arguments above from user Karanacs seem persuasive. Although I do have one question: is there any article or navBox template that covers the naval incidents? Or are they so few and unrelated that they do not warrant a dedicated article on the "naval war"? -- Noleander ( talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Texas Navy is the closest link. I think that this needs to be fleshed out and a First Texas Navy article spun out. The books I've seen that discuss the navy in any detail usually categorize by time frame (1836-1837), which doesn't overlap with the Texas Revolution. Karanacs ( talk) 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Okay, but that suggests a compromise: Why not include a link to Texas_Navy#First Texas Navy in this template? That way the individual (questionable) skirmishes are not listed in the template, yet the readers of the template will see that there was some Naval activity (the article says that Texas decided to build a Navy during the revolution). -- Noleander ( talk) 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Omit naval incidents - If, as is suggested above, the reliable sources regarding the subject do not include references to any naval incidents, then I cannot see any reason why we should. It might also cross the line of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR to include subjects which the reliable sources indicate were not relevant in the template, as that would reasonably be seen as indicating that they were relevant. No specific objections to including a ink to the Texas Navy, or maybe First Texas Navy. Even if it wasn't directly involved in any of the relevant battles, it existed at the time and might contain relevant information to the effect that it wasn't involved. If there were any way to remove the template about the Texas Revolution, and maybe replace it with another template dealing with the relevant government, including its military, that might work as well. John Carter ( talk) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Karanacs, so your only reason for reverting my edits is because "some" historians don't include them in their histories. Thats like suggesting they never happened in the first place and were not part of the revolution when they obviously were. If you look at the Handbook of Texas they include the naval battles and are "named battles" or incidents. As for Campeche, that was not part of the revolution so you were right in removing the link. However, there is no reason whatsoever to remove the others. They were part of the revolution and than means they can justly be linked together by the Texas Revolution template, which is the standard for every other campaign template on wiki. Nick D. I couldn't care less if you or anybody else is impatient. You cannot pretend these battles didn't exist or weren't part of the revolution. THAT IS UNSCHOLARLY.-- $1LENCE D0600D ( talk) 02:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you provide reliable sources that include each and every one of these as part of the Texas Revolution? Can you provide reliable sources that say that the naval skirmishes that took place in early 1835 and 1837 were part of the Texas Revolution? Every single source I have seen says the Texas Revolution lasted from Oct 5, 1835 through April 21, 1836. Even the Handbook of Texas article on the Invincible does not claim it was part of the Texas Revolution. Please provide sources to back up your assertions that these should be included. Karanacs ( talk) 02:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Agree with Karanacs here about needing RS's that specifically say that the skirmishes in question are specifically clearly counted as part of the Texas Revolution in some way. That would be best done with sources that specifically and clearly state that the skirmishes were a part of the TR, as per WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. I would grant that it is possible, I suppose, to say that actions which took place during the time period when the TR is stated by some reliable sources might be eligible for inclusion, but at the very least I think we would need to see reliable sources which specifically state that the events were a part of the TR, or alternately sources which indicate that the temporal scope of the TR includes the specific events in question. John Carter ( talk) 18:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I am proposing a name change to this template. Nothing special, just thought that this template should be called "Military operations of the Texas Revolution" (or something similar) in order to be consistent with the " Naval operations of the Texas Revolution" template I was forced to create.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 03:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

What would the point of changing the name of the template be? It would generate some work for no gain. Nick-D ( talk) 05:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you have any source YET to show that there WERE naval operations in the Texas Revolution? Why do you keep avoiding the question of reliable sources? Karanacs ( talk) 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Since I haven't seen sources, I was bold and moved the other template to Template:First Texas Navy with its parent article to First Texas Navy. The events described are much more under THAT scope than under hte Texas Revolution (and the two are not synonymous). This template describes the Texas Revolution, as it should, so no rename is necessary. Karanacs ( talk) 20:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply