Talk:Cinco de Mayo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mexico (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Mexican-Americans (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Mexican-Americans task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Cinco De Mayo- May 5th 1862


Contents

Contradictory ("limited significance")[edit]

"While Cinco de Mayo has limited significance nationwide in Mexico, the date is observed in the United States and other locations around the world as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.[8] While Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day,[9] it is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico.[10]"

These two sentences are completely contradictory. I like turtles I fixed it. The second part was a vandal edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.37.26 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory ("Events after the Battle")[edit]

"Events after the Battle

The Mexican victory, however, was short-lived. Thirty thousand troops and a full year later, the French were able to depose the Mexican army, capture Mexico City, and establish Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico.[14] However, the French victory was also short-lived, lasting only 3 years, from 1864 to 1867. With the U.S. Civil War over in 1865, the U.S. was able to provide more assistance to Mexico to expel the French, after which Maximilian I was executed by the Mexicans, along with his Mexican generals Miramón and Mejía, in the Cerro de las Campanas, Queretaro.[14][19] Significance

The Battle of Puebla was important for at least two reasons. First, although considerably outnumbered, the Mexicans defeated a Kim Cullelar and Tracy Patterson. "This battle was significant in that the 4,000 Mexican soldiers were greatly outnumbered by the well-equipped French army of 8,000 that had not been defeated for almost 50 years."[20][21] Second, it was significant because since the Battle of Puebla no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force.[22]"

The two paragraphs seem to contradict by saying that no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force since the Battle of Puebla. The preceeding section says that the French used thirty-thousand troops and a full year following the battle of Puebla to complete the invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNailbat (talkcontribs) 22:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I was just going to post the same comment. I am inserting a parenthetical phrase to acknowledge this, but I don't think that's a very satisfactory solution -- this "Significance" section should be significantly rewritten, or even removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlchandler (talkcontribs) 16:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's incorrect to say "since the Battle of Puebla no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force" when it was only after the Second Battle of Puebla that no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force. Preceding comment added by me :).

There is really no contradiction, because it was a different stage of the same event.
Although I agree that it must be corrected the way it is written.
The victory of Ignacio Zaragoza with an army with lots of chinacos (that means desarrapados or dressed with rags) over a military power of that time, brought enough motivation along the country to defend the legitimate liberal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.174.181 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

United States Holiday.[edit]

It is a Mexican Holiday. It is not an American Holiday and is not observed or celebrated nationwide in America. It maybe used as an excuse to drink by individuals who only see commercials and do not know the history. Vive la France!

"Cinco de Mayo (Spanish for "fifth of May") is a holiday celebrated in the United States and primarily limited to the state of Puebla in Mexico.[1][2] The holiday commemorates the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of Mexican General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín.[3][4]"

I can understand that there have been some strong disagreements over whether the holiday is celebrated more in the US than it is in Mexico. Perhaps it is due to large populations of Mexican-American citizens and other residents in the US. In any case, the leading sentence is woefully inadequate, confusing, and borders on contradictory. When an opening statement of this nature causes controversey, then it is not suitable for Wikipedia. We must start with something that can be stipulated or assumed, and then work in the not-so-obvious information...

"cinco De Mayo (Spanish for "fifth of May") is a holiday that commemorates the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of Mexican General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín. While not an "obligatory federal holiday" in Mexico, it is celebrated primarily in the state of Puebla in Mexico, and in the United States."

--T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


I agree with these edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cinco_de_Mayo&action=historysubmit&diff=359629238&oldid=357533309) by Lord Hawk to a point. However, I have to agree even more with T-dot. S/he has shown s/he is not looking to revert Lord Hawk's edits but to come to some reasonable middle ground. In particular, we should all know that a monumental change like the one made by Lord Hawk, where the perspective represents a full 180-degree about-face change, should at a minimum been brought to the Discussion page first - specially when you are just 2 days away from the calendar Cinco de Mayo day, and Lord Hawk should had known the article is obviously bound to get far many more hits. So why the rush...to (potentially) mislead (potentially) masses?

A few points:

  • The way it reads (post-Lord Hawk) stresses where it is celebrated, rather than describe what it is. Not exactly following policy (wp:lead)
  • Cinco de Mayo is not official anywhere in the US, that I know of. It is however, official in Puebla.
  • I have yet to see a calendar/planner, of the type that shows holidays in the US-Canada-Mexico (they are readily available in Staples stores and other similar outlets in the US) where the May 5th slot shows anything but "(M)" - which of course stands for Mexico, as in celebrated in Mexico. I have yet to see one that has a "(U)" [standing for United States] in it.

I have thus adopted T-dot's proposal in the hope that this wording is agreeable by most. Mercy11 (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh. It was like that way for a year or two before some Americans decided to change it. They always mess with it around May and try and justify that it is a Mexican holiday.

I must ask, why this article is written almost with -reverence- about the 5th of May. All the Mexicans I know (about 5) insist that Cinco de Mayo is an unimportant holiday. Further, if it's to be celebrated in the United States, along with St. Patrick's day, Octoberfest, etc., then the United States should drop Cinco de Mayo OUT OF RESPECT for the Mexican people and celebrate the 16th of September. Cinco de Mayo is (probably) entirely the 'production' of Corona Beer or something like it. To write this entry about the "United States" in terms of something entirely Mexican, is the very travesty Americans should seek to avoid. Something about gabachos and such. If the editors of this article want to write about the day, it should focus on Mexico, and not contain information about the US, unless the commercial character of the 5th of May is made a part of this article.Mark Preston (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I request that references to it being "celebrated in the United States" be removed. This makes it appear that Americans of non-Mexican heritage are celebrating this holiday, which is not true. And it is also not celebrated by all Americans with Mexican heritage. I propose instead that it read "sometimes celebrated outside of Mexico by people of Mexican heritage." Or even better yet, the reference to where it is celebrated could be removed entirely. French people living in other countries probably continue to celebrate French holidays, Americans living overseas may still celebrate Thanksgiving, etc. 206.180.154.82 (talk) Anonymous Texan (with Mexican heritage!) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

invasion[edit]

The text talks about Cinco de Mayo being the final invasion of the American Continent by a foreign power... however, it was not the last battle. The invasion continued, resulting in the conquest of Mexico. So... from an invasion standpoint, Cinco de Mayo is completely irrelevant. Needs either rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijecharles (talkcontribs) 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Note - Just to correct a historical fact. The 5 de Mayo was "not" the final invasion of the American Continent by a foreign power. During World War II, small parts of the Aleutian islands, the westernmost part of the United States, were occupied by Japanese forces, when Attu and Kiska were invaded in order to divert American forces away from the main Japanese attack at Midway Atoll. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - In addition the British invaded the Falkland Islands after they were seized by Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.142.13.82 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As the footnote in References states, "Note that since Cinco de Mayo no army from another continent has invaded the Americas. The War of the Falklands War, for example, was fought in the Americas but the Islands were invaded by a military from the Americas (the Argentine military). They were subsequently attacked (not invaded) by the UK. Another example, Pearl Harbor, experienced an attack, not an invasion by the Japanese. The only possible exception to the Cinco de Mayo claim above might be the brief occupation/invasion of two of the Alaskan Aleutian Islands by the Japanese military during WWII. This event, however, was so insignificant as to be virtually negligible: the islands invaded had a total population of 12 Americans and some 45 natives, the invasion was short-lived, and the battle fought there had no notoriety other than the psychological effect on the Americans that the Japanese had invaded American territory again (Alaska was not yet a full-fledged state). In short, the military importance of this small, frozen piece of "land" was nowhere comparable to superior military significance of the Battle of Puebla."

As for the statement that "the British invaded the Falkland Islands after they were seized by Argentina", this is not correct. The way history registers the events leading to the [[Falklands War] is that it was Argentina that invaded the Islands, with the British responding militarily to retake (not invade) the islands. As such, there was no invasion by an European power, but by a power from the Western Hemisphere.

Mercy11 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The incursion of the French Army of Napoleon III, had the goal to conquer what they called Latin America (this term is widely used today.) It was a very different plan from the other invasions mentioned here. You may add "with plans to conquer" if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.174.181 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from XLM, 5 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add:

"The CocoRosie song "Lemonade", from their 2010 album "Grey Oceans", refers to the date in it's opening line; "It was Cinco de Mayo..."

To popular culture references. Thank you XLM (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jonslate, 5 May 2010[edit]

A quintessential band and orchestra piece in the U.S. that's popular with audiences and enjoyed by performers, played not only on Cinco de Mayo, is "Malagueña_(song)". Depending on the arrangement, it usually has a very rhythmically interesting and exciting bass line accompaniment. Some tuba players, such as I, have said that the beginning of Malagueña reminds them of the beginning of "Mars, the Bringer of War"

-- the first Movement from Gustav_Holst's seven movement orchestral suite, "The_Planets."

Jon L. Slate (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Slate, as an established user you can edit the article. The article's protection is directed towards unregistered users whose only aim had been to vandalize the article. Just remember, do not post anything which may be deemed as vandalism and provide and cite verifiable reliable sources to back up your addition. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

the lead[edit]

repeats itself. The second paragraph just repeats the first. Is such nonsense protection worthy?--24.85.68.231 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The references need to be present. If you have a clear suggestion for the two to merge while using the references, please suggest it. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Request edit to significance[edit]

Stating that Cinco de Mayo is significant for two reasons, and one being it was the last time the Americans had been attacked by a foreign army, downplays the attack in the Aleutian Islands (which were also occupied by Japanese forces for a time). I feel that while the cited article says that this was insignificant, it is still true. Therefore, I request we remove that as a reason Cinco de Mayo is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazanga (talkcontribs) 12:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • That is discussed under footnote #15. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I read footnote #15. This what I have say in regard to footnote #15. The invasion of Puebla by France is significant because it was the last time that a "European" power invaded America and therefore, the sentence "last time the Americans had been attacked by a foreign army" which is misleading should be rewritten as such. This is an encyclopedia which must be based on facts regardless of the opinions expressed in any editorial. The brief occupation/invasion of two of the Alaskan Aleutian Islands by the Japanese military during WWII is significant because of the psychological effect on the Americans that the Japanese had invaded American territory. The U.S. feared that the islands would be used as bases from which to launch aerial assaults against the West Coast, and it became a matter of national pride to expel the first invaders to set foot on American soil since the War of 1812. Many men died fighting there including Private Joe P. Martinez, the first Hispanic-American recipient who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for combat heroism on American soil during World War II.

The Japanese invasion may not be comparable to superior military significance of the Battle of Puebla, as the editorial claims, but the fact remains that it was the last invasion of the Americas by a foreign military power. Therefore, I once again suggest that we get our facts straight and rewrite the sentence to "The invasion of Puebla was the last time that a 'European" power invaded America". Tony the Marine (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources I checked state this was the last time an "European power" invaded "North America". Others state this was the last time an "European power" invaded "The Americas". Some sources go further to state this was the last time a "foreign power" invaded "The Americas". No source I found state the Alaska/Aleuthian Islands attack by the Japanese to have been the last time a foreign power invaded the Americas or even just North America. Thus the text as it stands now is correct. Written differently would be a violation of WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence should be thrown out. For example, a year later, the French re-invaded Mexico and installed Maximillian. The fact that this is mentioned in the paragraph directly above the statement about no more invasions makes it worse. Drunaii (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that sources state the French re-invaded. However, though the French may have re-invaded, history still views 5 de Mayo as the last time a foreign power invaded the Americas... Historians look at the re-invasion as part of the whole French intervention in Mexico campaign and not as a separate event on its own right. We cannot concoct our own generalizations; that would also be WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.161.2.187, 5 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under Observances: Elsewhere someone edited the article to say grade 12 highschool students will be drinking all day today.


24.161.2.187 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please eliminate  "Grade 12 High school students in Ottawa will be drinking all day today". 72.152.223.250 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Already done Done Warned the user. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sabotage--reference to marijuana[edit]

One of this page's regular editors should remove or correct this sentence: "In 1861, Benito Juárez stopped making interest payments to countries that Mexico owed large amounts of marijuana to." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.13.100 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate topic paragraph[edit]

Quote from wiki article: "While Cinco de Mayo has limited significance nationwide in Mexico, the date is observed in the United States and other locations around the world as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.[8] While Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day,[9] it is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico.[10]"

The last sentence is not just misleading, it is wrong and not only does it contradict the sentence directly before it, it isn't even what the the source it cites (source [10]) says. Source [10] is this article http://www.alpineavalanche.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/news03.txt. In which it says, "A common misconception in the United States is that Cinco de Mayo is Mexico's Independence Day; Mexico's Independence Day is actually September 16 (dieciséis de septiembre), which is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico."

September 16th, Mexico's Independence Day is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico, not Cinco de Mayo. Now I don't know much about editing wiki pages, especially if they are semi protected like this one, otherwise I'd do it myself. But this is pretty obviously wrong and somebody should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.177.164 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Voluntarily-observed"?[edit]

In the introductory description of Cinco de Mayo, it is described at a "voluntarily-observed" holiday. Does this make sense to anyone? Are there "forcefully-observed"? I think that language can be tweaked so that it elicits fewer Orwellian allusions. Holidays are essential "recognized" by various levels of state or religious institutions. Maybe they have "forcefully-observed" holidays in North Korea, but I don't think the phrase "voluntarily-observed" gives any level of context. - Gwopy 20:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It means that it is not officially recognized.


I tend to agree with this observer. For example, who would say that Valentine's Day (or Mother's Day, Earth Day, Halloween, you name it -- even Christmas!) is a "voluntarily-observed" holiday (anywhere)?
If the editor was trying to emphasize that the day is not an official holiday (at any jurisdictional level), this is already done elsewhere in the article - including the introduction itself. As such, the entry on the opening statement is already redundant.
To exacerbate the situation, since the first sentence (with this "voluntarily-observed" phrase) does not says where it its thus observed, the intro later appears to say that it is in Mexico where it is voluntarily observed, but not in the United States! ("the date is observed in the United States")
Such little phrase can lead to confusion, perplexity, and controversy, and should be avoided. The article is best without such qualifier. On these grounds, I have removed the phrase. Mercy11 (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.197.151.250, 6 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} The number of French troops is incorrect. Most sources report only about 6000, rather than 8000 were present. One such source would be:

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/10.html

74.197.151.250 (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for pointing that out. The current text is a quote from one of the sources and can't simply be changed. Can you provide text to replace the quote? Also, you may want to find more examples of "most sources" if you want to remove the newspaper source. The current tally is one source, a PBS web page, which says 6000 and one source, a newspaper, which says 8000. Celestra (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Any reason not to remove the "Popular Culture References" section?[edit]

None of the items in the "Popular Culture References" section seem, IMO, to meet the criteria in WP:IPC. Is there any reason we should keep that section? I'm strongly inclined to nuke it, but I thought I'd ask for opinions... -- Narsil (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And, hearing no objections... -- Narsil (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride"[edit]

I would like to point out that the statement "While Cinco de Mayo sees limited significance and celebration nationwide in Mexico, the date is observed nationwide in the United States and other locations around the world as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride" lists a reference to [8]; going to the link provided labeled as "statement from a Mexican official" takes you to an article from 2007 that quotes no such offical, nor does it indicate a national movement in the United States as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.

Thank you.

Montoyad73 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Montoyad73

Unprotected[edit]

I have unprotected the article. Please keep in mind that all additions to the article must cite verifiable reliable sources. Changes made to the article must be within reason and justified. Provide an explanation in the "edit summary". Most important of all, refrain from vandalizing the article, This is no place for childish behavior. Thank you all. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Consequences to the United States[edit]

The section titled "Consequences to the United States" needs serious revision. The portions in quotations are of debatable accuracy. It is doubtful that the Battle of Puebla kept the French out of the US Civil War. The Battle of Antietam in September 1862 and the subsequent Emanciation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 were more effective in keeping out the French (and British). Intervention after January 1, 1863 would have meant fighting to defend slavery. While the Union Army may have been the largest and most advanced army in the world at the end of the Civil War, calling it the "greatest army the world had ever seen" seems overkill. Size and technological superiority do not always equal victory as is shown by the Battle of Puebla among many other battles. Nor is it accurate to state that the Union army "smashed the Confederates at Gettysburg...essentially ending the Civil War." The Civil War lasted almost two years after the end of the Battle of Gettysburg. And Gettysburg, though a Union victory, can hardly be called a smashing. It was a near-run thing which the Confederates almost won several times. The Confederate army, though beaten, was still a potent force and defeated the Union army several times after Gettysburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryC123 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument seems plausible enough to me. Just be sure it comes with citations; otherwise it would constitute wp:or. If there are two opposing sides (again, don't forget the citations) then we could move the whole thing into a new "Controversy/ies" section by itself.
I took the liberty of making this into a new Talk topic, separate from the Unprotected matter - I believe this is what you intended.
Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I intended. Thank you. This was my first attempt to comment on a Wikipedia article and I had trouble with the interface. I hope this is done correctly.

Nothing I said constitutes original research. I am not a professional historian. I have been interested in Civil War history since reading Bruce Catton's "A Stillness At Appomattox" about 50 years ago. I would cite that first for what happened to the victorious Union army after the Battle of Gettysburg. Bruce Catton's three volume "Centennial History of the Civil War" and Shelby Foote's excellent three volume history of the Civil War are good sources for the background and effects of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is difficult to be more specific because the claims in the section I questioned are rather broad.

Perhaps it is the person responsible for posting the quotation I questioned who should be expected to provide documentation. I checked the source and found that the quotation came from a web site for "Viva! Cinco de Mayo and State Menudo Cook-Off" of San Marcos, Texas. I believe I would be violating the "Respect" and "Politeness" standards of Wikipedia should I discuss the principal ingredient in Menudo at this point. I believe someone got a bit carried away with an attempt to show how the Battle of Puebla is important to the U.S. HarryC123 (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In reading the above I realize that I have not provided the sort of specific references you require. Again, this is a first for me so please bear with me.

First, I believe the entire section should be removed because it is poorly documented and is really irrelevant to the subject of the article. There are two specific citations contained in the section but they are not independent. One citation is to the Menudo Cook-Off site I mentioned above. This site has no references to back up its claims and really does read as if it was written by a member of the local Chamber of Commerce. The other citation is to something called The Huffington Post. This site uses identical language as the Menudo Cook-Off site to describe the Battle of Puebla and, therefore, can't be an independent source. The Huffington Post also cites Wikipedia as a source and, thus, is a circular reference.

The question here involves the conduct of a significant portion of the American Civil War. Thus, I believe that I should support my theses with references that cover the war as a whole.

This Hallowed Ground, 1955, by Bruce Catton The Army of the Potomac trilogy by Bruce Catton

    Mr. Lincoln's Army, 1951
    Glory Road, 1952
    A Stillness At Appomattox, 1953

The Centennial History of the Civil War by Bruce Catton

    The Coming Fury, 1961
    Terrible Swift Sword, 1963
    Never Call Retreat, 1965

Grant Takes Command, 1968, by Bruce Catton The Civil War: A Narrative, 1958, 1963, 1974, by Shelby Foote

These are ponderous volumes. But, reading them is most rewarding as they are among the most easily read histories ever written. Mr. Catton and Mr. Foote provide excellent documentation to primary sources. Appropriate sections of these books discuss the connections between the Battle of Antietam, the Emancipation Proclamation, and its effect on potential European intervention. The books all cover the Battle of Gettysburg in detail. Finally, the books describe the years of hard fighting still to come after Gettysburg. The Confederates won several major battles after Gettysburg including the Battles of Chickamauga, Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse, and Cold Harbor. HarryC123 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding!!! You are not asking me to read those various "ponderous volumes" to find citations to back up YOUR position, when I have posted edits that present a view different from yours on this matter, are you??? Mercy11 (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I don't expect you to read all that and I'm sorry if I upset you. But, the reason for citing the "ponderous volumes" is because of the sweeping nature of the poorly supported claims in this section of the article. The entire support for these statements is a quotation from a site devoted to a menudo cook-off. A second citation in the section is not independent and may be a reference to this article. Neither of these cited sources indicated where the sweeping claims come from. Contrast that to the "ponderous volumes." Neither Catton nor Foote omit citations to their own sources.

There were several points with which I took issue. The first two were that the Battle of Puebla kept the French from interfering in the US Civil War and that the Union army was "the greatest army the world had ever seen." Both of these points are debatable. The Battle of Puebla might have influenced the French, but not the British. One effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep out the British. The "ponderous volumes" discuss the history and effects of the Emancipation Proclamation in detail and are far easier to read than more focused volumes. "The greatest army the world had ever seen" is entirely a matter of opinion and ought to be supported by actual data, not a broad statement.

The real reason for citing the "ponderous volumes" is due to the final two points. Gettysburg simply was not about the "smashing" of the Confederate army. It was about the attempt by the Confederate Army to "smash" the Union army. A telling point is that the Confederate army was in Pennsyvania to begin with. They were invading the North and hoping to "smash" the Union army. For three days at Gettysburg, the Confederates tried again and again to "smash" the Union army ending with "Pickett's Charge" on the third day. The Union Army fought a defensive battle. All this is covered by the relevant chapters in the "ponderous volumes." The battle covered many engagements over the course of three days. No single citable incident tells the whole story.

Even more than the Battle of Gettysburg itself, the notion that the war ended there requires the citation of the "ponderous volumes." At least two of the citatations, Catton's "A Stillness At Appomattox" and "Grant Takes Command," are only about the war after Gettysburg. If the war had ended at Gettysburg, Catton could have written, "the war was over, nothing else happened." Instead he wrote "A Stillness At Appomatox" and garnered a Pulitzer Prize. A lot happened and Catton's descriptions of what happened are superb. Both Foote's "Civil War" and Catton's "Centennial History of the Civil War" could have lost a volume if the war ended at Gettysburg. But, no single quotation will illustrate that better than the books themselves.

The sources cited are all readily available to anyone who wishes to verify what I am saying. Any one of the sources would do and no one has to read the whole three volumes in any single citation. The chapters on the Emancipation Proclamation and the Battle of Gettysburg plus skimming the sections after Gettysburg will establish the facts. I specifically selected sources that can be read for pleasure. No one is better at that than Catton and Foote. If you want an even easier introduction to this, Ken Burns's PBS documentary on the Civil War is available at the same local public library as the books I cited. The documentary includes extensive interviews with Shelby Foote.

In summary, the section should be removed because it is a side-bar to the main topic, is poorly supported, and is contradicted by a mass of data. The mass of data is so large that "ponderous volumes" are required to describe all of it. HarryC123 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, as I said, your argument may be plausible. However, you need to provide actual citations, not just a whole book, and teh citation(s) has/have to directly address the issue. Otherwise it may be in violation of wp:or. I have provided another citation from a book written by an seasoned American journalist and broadcaster, printed in the USA, quiet recently (2006), and supported with plenty of examples, logic, and arguments to back up what is out there, namely that various historians argue that one perspective. (You appeared to be objecting to the Menudo cook-off, Viva! Cinco de Mayo, etc, citation that I had previously provided.) Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I decided to add a couple more citations on this issue. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My objection to the Menudo cook-off site was that it was the only citation (the Huffington Post citation was not an independent source) and that the cited source made broad statements not backed up. Your additional citation only addresses the question of whether the Battle of Puebla prevented the French from intervening in the Civil War. Had that been the only questionable statement in this section I probably would have let the whole thing pass as the kind of exercise in post hoc that really would become a pointless debate. The statement that the victorious army at Gettysburg was "the greatest army the world had ever known" falls into the same category.

You object to my citations of entire books. The point of those citations is that entire books have been written about Gettysburg, the Gettysburg Campaign, and the history of the war after Gettysburg. The very existence of these books is evidence that nothing I might say on the subject is original research. But, it also means that there is a very large mass of data that contradicts the statements in the article about Gettysburg and no single quotation is going to summarize that data. If you want to know what happened, you need to read the books.

I'm not going to debate this further. It's your article and you can decide how much hogwash you want in it. HarryC123 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry, nobody owns articles in this place wp:own. You obviosuly feel very strong about your position. I have already stated that all you need to do is support your beliefs with actual citations - that's all. But I have seen none after several days.
It has probably gone unnoticed by you that your comments actually helped improve the article quite a bit by finding more precise citations supporting the content that you objected to. I actually appreciated that input for, believe it or not, I learned a few things more along the way myself.
I will say this much more, though: the point you are now stating for a 2nd time ("greatest army in the world" thing) has also plenty of independent support. I will not address it just now, for lack of time - but will shortly. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, one more thing, I agree with you entirely that "Gettysburg, though a Union victory, ... was a near-run thing which the Confederates almost won several times. The Confederate army, though beaten, was still a potent force and defeated the Union army several times after Gettysburg." However, that still does not do away with the Battle of Puebla facts. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing here can take away from the remarkable victory won by the Mexicans at Puebla. That victory is worthy of celebration.

And it did not go unnoticed that you have improved the article. I'm glad to hear that you have learned something. I originally read the article to learn about the history of Cinco de Mayo and, therefore, learned as well. HarryC123 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Mercy, you have received a considerable amount of academic sources to the actual history of the Civil War and especially Gettysburg. As they are all nothing more than alternate history fiction ("What would have happened if...") with laughable claims (absolutely baseless assumptions about the French intentions which contradict the Wikipedia article of the invasion itself and it's much better sources/the claim that Britain was deterred by the Mexican victory while it is well established that the Emancipation Proclamation was the main deterrent as intervention for slavery would have been political suicide for any British politician etc. pp.) none of your sources fulfill the criteria of actual academic research as outlined in wp:rs. Your asking for sources of alternative views is fallacious. Obviously there will be no credible historical research about a fictitious version of events basing itself on absurd and partially outright wrong claims. Alternate history is not the realm of academical historical research but of cheap novels. You will not find a single historian wasting his time to discount the claims of how a singular event could have lead to German victory WW2, which is the most common theme of cheap alternate history novels, either. Additionally you will not find a section with this subject in the article about WW2 because it doesn't fit Wikipedias purpose.

Furthermore all the citations and the websites of the "sources" themselves are tainted by the language of national identity and pride, again something that has no place in serious academia. Wikipedia is not a platform for nationalist propaganda of the greatness of a nations achievements and its impact on other people.

Overall the whole section as it stands now should be removed for not being anywhere near Wikipedia's Purpose or Standards and nothing more than a piece of nationalist self glorification (or celebration as the article terms it...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.192.44 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Cinco de Mayo, not about the U.S. Civil War: you wouldn't go to a Pepsi dealer for a Coke, right? And the same thing holds true here; namely, you just won't find Cinco de Mayo facts in American Civil War books.
As for your charge about the article being "nothing more than a piece of nationalist self glorification," well, I can only say this: that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and this: that anyone wanting to see articles that could quickly be termed by some as "nothing more than a piece of nationalist self glorification" should first check North Korea, France, Cuba, and Spain, to get a taste of what "nothing more than a piece of nationalist self glorification" really means. However, do leave room for the article on the United States, for if there was an article that could qualify, hands down, as the winner for your "nothing more than a piece of nationalist self glorification" trophy, it's definitely that one. 'My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I find the entire topic highly speculative and tangential. Correctness is not the issue; relevance is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.21.9 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes it it a bit speculative. However, if there were a French dominated Mexican government they COULD have sent troops and/or supplies to the Confederacy. Such a government could at least facilitate, rather than hinder, efforts by England and Spain. Since this battle failed, there was no such government to affect the US war so we cannot do other than to speculate if such a government WOULD have become involved. The outcome at Vicksburg meant that it no longer mattered if a Mexican based government wanted to intervene, there was no path for it to do so. We can argue the phrasing "effectively ending the war", many dead soldiers would argue that point. There is no debate that July 4th 1863 marked the turning point and it was no longer likely (perhaps no longer possible) for the South to win. We in the States sometimes ignore outside events and it might actually be a good idea to attempt to connect these dots.Elrond2k12 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

worst-best ?[edit]

the French army, the worst-best army at the time

What does 'worst-best' mean?

Also, there appears to be an unbalanced quote-mark at the end of the quoted sentence.

---Tex (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. However, you will need to explain better the unbalanced quote item. Mercy11 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from articles[edit]

the quotes from http://egpnews.com/?p=9337 "Cinco de Mayo is not a Mexican holiday—it is an American Civil War holiday, created spontaneously by Mexicans and Latinos living in California who supported the fragile cause of defending freedom and democracy during the first years of that bloody war between the states." Needs to be discussed and edited. This quote is opinion and not fact. Cdiasoh (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What's so not fact about it? not a Mexican holiday? an American Civil War holiday? created expontaneously by Mexican and Latinos? living in California? etc? etc? Please be specific. Mercy11 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011

a quote shouldn't be in the wiki summary. are there other references other than an op-ed piece to support "civil war holiday"? look at other wiki pages about holidays for reference on how a page should be structured. Cdiasoh (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

as well the statement "Cinco de Mayo is not a Mexican holiday—it is an American Civil War holiday, created spontaneously by Mexicans and Latinos living in California ..." completely contradicts the history of observance section that references the UCLA study AND the wiki page on Public holidays in Mexico that does list Cinco De Mayo as a Civic holiday. If you must reference the article then paraphrase it in the history section of the wiki article. As well the complete quote from the article is: "The answer is simple: Celebration of the Cinco de Mayo is not a Mexican holiday—it is an American Civil War holiday, created spontaneously by Mexicans and Latinos living in California who supported the fragile cause of defending freedom and democracy during the first years of that bloody war between the states." Leaving out "The answer is simple: Celebration of the" is taking the quote completely out of context. Cdiasoh (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a well-documented fact that Cinco de Mayo sees a wider celebration in the US than in Mexico; however, the previous lead failed to reflect this other than saying so. The additional quoted and sourced information provided fixes this shortcoming. The statement that you are objecting to is the only statement in the lead that explains -why- it is celebrated also in the US. Again, it is a well-documented fact that 5 de Mayo sees a wider celebration in the US than in Mexico, and that is what the lead needs to reflect. Mercy11 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's needs to be a better way to explain "-why-" it is celebrated in the US than using a quote from an article. The section "Consequences to the United States" explains "-why-" it is celebrated in the US and also in the "History of observance" section. Expand those sections with the opinions of the article the quote is from. Leave the partial quote out of the summary. It completely contradicts the summary. Cdiasoh (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead contained information that continued to place too much emphasis in the celebrations in Mexico over the US. This is now changed to reflect reality: the holiday is celebrated nationally in the US, and only regionally in Mexico.Mercy11 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur w/ the summary paragraph (although the last sentence is a repeat of the blurb at the top of the article). Cdiasoh (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.23.66.191, 5 May 2011[edit]

Cinco de Mayo marks an outnumbered Mexican army’s victory over an invading French army on May 5, 1862, in Puebla, east of Mexico City.

Although Mexico’s triumph lifted morale during a time of political and economic upheaval, it was short-lived. Mexico later succumbed to French rule in a period known as the French Intervention that lasted until 1867.

Keeping the French from creating an empire in North America was a mutual interest that sparked cooperation between US President Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juárez, his counterpart in Mexico. Today, statues of the American president stand tall in Mexico, and statues of the Mexican president, one of the country’s most beloved leaders, grace US soil.

24.23.66.191 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of facts between "Events after teh Battle" and "Significance"[edit]

There is a conflict of facts in the following paragrahs - the article under "Significance" states that "since the Battle of Puebla no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force." But one paragraph before that under "Events after the Battle" states that "The Mexican victory, however, was short-lived. Thirty thousand troops and a full year laterk, the French were able to depost the Mexican army, capture Mexico City, and establish Emperor Maximilan I as ruler of Mexico." This means that one country in the Americas "has been invaded by a European military force" after the Battle of Puebla, making the statement aforementioned inaccurate and thus, cannot be "significant".

Events after the Battle The Mexican victory, however, was short-lived. Thirty thousand troops and a full year later, the French were able to depose the Mexican army, capture Mexico City, and establish Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico.[14] However, the French victory was also short-lived, lasting only 3 years, from 1864 to 1867. With the U.S. Civil War over in 1865, the U.S. was able to provide more assistance to Mexico to expel the French, after which Maximilian I was executed by the Mexicans, along with his Mexican generals Miramón and Mejía, in the Cerro de las Campanas, Queretaro.[14][19]

Significance The Battle of Puebla was important for at least two reasons. First, although considerably outnumbered, the Mexicans defeated a much better-equipped French army. "This battle was significant in that the 4,000 Mexican soldiers were greatly outnumbered by the well-equipped French army of 8,000 that had not been defeated for almost 50 years."[20][21] Second, it was significant because since the Battle of Puebla no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force.[22]

65.126.245.162 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted under another comment pointing out this contradiction, I have added a parenthetical phrase to correct this. However, I think this is just a stopgap solution, and the whole "significance" section should be rewritten. DLC (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

is this fantasypedia or wikipedia?[edit]

One of the worst wikis I've ever seen. Largely made up by a slipshod combination of blatant lies, incredible speculation, and baseless assumptions.66.190.31.229 (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Verify what lies are in the article using reliable sources and they could possibly be changed. Creation7689 (talk)

Citation stating that Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of the American Revolution[edit]

In the penultimate paragraph of citation #9, it states, “Mr. Hayes-Bautista thinks…” this acknowledged Cinco de Mayo. This is not a conclusive or valid citation, regardless of whether or not he is a professor at UCLA. Citation #10, Youthworker.com, is a propaganda article again citing Hayes-Bautista: “according to David E. Hayes-Bautista.” Citing this same information twice does not validate it. Citation #11 is a college newspaper again citing same – citing same source three times does not validate source. Citation #12 has no information directly related to Cinco de Mayo – it is simply a link to EMGNews.com. Invalid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.223.219 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

They meet WP:RS which is what you have to look at. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Congressional Record[edit]

This edit has been reverted - not liking a citation (or 3 as in this case) not a reason for text removal. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


Content dispute[edit]

Per WP:RS, the citation #9 to Cinco de Mayo: The Real Story., when clicked on, connects only to the main site http://egpnews.com/ and thus does not satisfy WP:RS.

However, assuming that you are able to find the link your looking for, I still contend few persons beyond Mr. Hayes-Bautista and perhaps Mercy11 celebrates Cinco de Mayo “to commemorate the cause of freedom and democracy during the first years of the American Civil War.” I agree that this “date is observed in the United States as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.” But to add that it’s a celebration for freedom and democracy of the Civil War, in my opinion, belittles this otherwise significant day of celebration, since it appears a clear attempt to give it greater historical significance.

To use your own logic, Mercy11, if Battle of Puebla is in fact the last “the last time any army from another continent invaded the Americas” which you prove by first dismissing, per historical record, the actual most recent invasion with the statement that the Japanese invasion and occupation of Alaska was “so insignificant as to be virtually negligible: the islands invaded had a total population of 12 Americans and some 45 natives,” which, for the sake of this argument I’ll accept (even with its questionable logic – after all, you describe Alaska as a “small, frozen piece of land” who military invasion “was nowhere comparable” to Mexico [read: no importance to me, Mercy11, in terms of promoting my political agenda]), then we can extend your logic to assume that if only yourself and Mr. Hayes-Bautista celebrates Cinco de Mayo in relation to the Civil War, then whether or not you have a citation that satisfies WP:RS would make little difference, because this opinion would be “so insignificant as to be virtually negligible” given that only a couple persons out of millions of Latinos, including myself, celebrate it as such.

You, Mercy11, have assigned yourself as Gatekeeper and Censor to Wikis Cinco de Mayo page – refers to your numerous comments above on this Discussions page. If one feels your logic is questionable, such as your insistence that Latinos celebrate this holiday as an extension of the American Civil War and that it’s the last time an outside power invaded the Americas, your control and constant disallows any dissenting opinion.

For myself, I will not continue checking this page to see if you have continued to keep its historical record in accordance with your views and what I would term historical revisionism to satisfy your clear political agenda (see Mercy11 contributions). So in the end, you win. But if you do, in fact, see yourself as somebody trying to contribute to an objective historical record, then I suggest you step back for a moment and reevaluate your motives for so keenly monitoring pages such as this one.

Certainly, you can respond to this comment by reverting the page to its former self and sign off  “Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.”

But be very clear, your “approval” does not lend itself historical authenticity or objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.217.80 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS NOT about what you or I agree or disagree with. It is ABOUT what is said by PUBLISHED AUTHORS (unless, of course you are a PA yourself - which I so far doubt). However, I do commend your initiative, challenging some of what I have contributed to in this article. But please no "gatekeeper" arguments for I do not claim OWNERSHIP to this or any other Wikipedia article. I would suggest that if you have another author's POV/OPINION on the Cinco de Mayo celebration, by all means ADD it in. However, what you have done so far is REMOVING cited, reliable, published information merely because you disagree with the PA's published article, and -that- is against Wikipedia POLICY. If you still disagree after reading the wikilinks I have provided, please take it CONFLICT RESOLUTION. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

"the French army, the best army of the time"[edit]

I've edited the article to take out the clause "the best army of the time". If you look at my edit summary, it's clear that I misread that clause, quoting it as saying "the best of all time", but I think that what I said in the edit summary still applies. There were lots of strong armies in 1862, such as Britain's Army, the Russian Empire's army, and many others. An article about Cinco de Mayo in The Bulletin, "Philadelphia's Family Newspaper" isn't a reliable source for proclaiming one of them the "best". The real downside to this edit is that it leaves the sentence feeling cut short. The sentence probably should go on to describe how strong the French Army at the time was.

Perhaps, "one of the strongest armies at the time" would be more appropriate. I think the source could be held as semi-reliable for that statement. If the article does refer to France's army as the "best" of the time, the author would basically have to be lying or making up her facts in order to make that statement if France's army wasn't at least among the strongest at the time. Not lying or making up facts is something I think we can rely on from a genuine new article (as opposed to tabloid National Enquirer-style news).

In fact, I'll make the above edit. There may be a description of the French Army's strength (something that the sentence in question clearly needs) that would serve as an even better fit than "one of the best armies at the time". If anyone comes up with such a description, obviously they should be bold and replace mine. Or if someone finds a more appropriate source for the statement that France's army was "the best of the time", they should edit it back in (with the obvious qualifier that that statement should genuinely represent what the majority of our reliable sources say, or imply, on the issue so that we avoid just "cherry picking" the one reliable source that says what we want to say).--James Fahringer (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

James, I agree with some the comments you make above, but want to set the record straight on some points for the benefit of everyone:
  1. You are questioning the legitimacy of Philadelphia's "The Bulletin" newspaper, emphasizing for example, the fact that it labeled itself as "a FAMILY newspaper" and that its link is a dead link HERE. Let's set the record straight: we are not talking here about a Family Circle or FamilyFun-type of publication even if it wasn't printed on glossy. "The Bulletin" was a full-feature daily that is no longer published because of, like many others, circumstances revolving around the surgence of the Internet, bad management, and consolidation of printed media under the big media conglomerates of today such as Gannett. So, your assessment is not correct, and The Bulletin -is- a fully reliable, credible source; it fulfills all the criteria of WP:RS.
  2. While a source that you may consider "semi-reliable" (and, if such thing exists, I specifically exclude here The Bulletin based on my satements above) should be supplemented by one that would better fit WP:RS, your edit reflects none of those two alternatives, for you have introduced your own third alternative ("Perhaps, "one of the strongest armies at the time" would be more appropriate"). What I am saying is this: it is worst yet to come up with your own view of what you perceive the newspaper article should had said and to insert such perceived view into the article as fact. This is what the change HERE amounts to, and is a violation of WP:OR, for which I have reverted the article to what the newspaper article does state (you can verify the article's wording at a library).
  3. The accussation of lying on the author of The Bulletin. Proof: 0%. Assumption:100. This is not even a form or extension of violation of WP:FAITH, but rather just bad Wikipedia editing altogether. Sorry to be so straight-forward; no offense intended.
  4. Per WP:WEIGHT, the sentence should -not- "go on to describe how strong the French Army at the time was". This is not an article about the French Army, but about the Cinco de Mayo celebration.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

To clarify, I'm not questioning The Bulletin's legitimacy in general. The Bulletin was, as you stated, "a full-feature daily" newspaper; that's unambiguously sufficient to meet the general criteria of WP:RS. However, WP:RS explicitly states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Furthermore, the section within WP:RS dealing with the reliability of new organizations specifically says "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." and goes on to state "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis."
My assessment (that the cited news article probably isn't a reliable source for the statement describing the French army as "the best army of the time") was made in light of the context-based reliability considerations described in the above paragraph. One of those context-based reliability considerations was that The Bulletin billed itself as "Philadelphia's Family Newspaper". This is another example of where I should have been more clear on the point that I was making. That The Bulletin referred to itself as a "Family Newspaper" wasn't meant to detract from it's general reliability compared to other news organizations. It's just as legitimate of a news source as The New York Times or The CBS Evening News. I brought up the fact that The Bulletin styled itself as "Philadelphia's Family Newspaper" only as a quick way to show that it wasn't dedicated topic-specific newspaper. A newspaper that chooses "family newspaper" as a primary way of describing itself probably isn't dedicated to any specific topic or, if it is, it's dedicated to family related concerns. But it's clearly not dedicated to covering a field such as astrophysics, or sociology (to name a couple of random examples), or more relevantly to covering history or military issues (or preferably both). There are other ways to make the same point. Linking to Wikipedia's article on The Bulletin (newspaper) to show that it was a general topic newspaper would have been more effective. The point, though, is that The Bulletin was not dedicated to covering military or history related issues, which would have given the cited article a significant argument in favor of being a reliable source for the statement in question.
The counterpart to that point is that the cited article is about Cinco de Mayo, and that fact is just as relevant for assessing the reliability of the article as a source for the statement that France's army was "the best army of the time" (in 1862). An article about Cinco de Mayo isn't an article about the relative strength of the world's militaries in 1862; it's an article about Cinco de Mayo. It might mention, in passing, an assessment of how strong France's (or Mexico's) army was in order to give context to the battle that occurred on 5 May 1862. Nevertheless, unless some other factor provides the article with reliability as a source for the statement in question, an article about Cinco de Mayo isn't going to be a good source for the statement that France's army was "the best of the time". In order be a reliable source for that statement, it would have to cover the state of the world's militaries at that time in a rather general manner, which it clearly doesn't, because (as I stated earlier) it's an article about Cinco de Mayo, not an article about the relative strength of the world's militaries in 1862. Combined with the fact that The Bulletin wasn't a topic-specific newspaper about military history, it's straightforward that this article isn't a good source for determining which army of that time was the "best".
A major consideration for the context-sensitive assessment of reliability here is the strength of statement being made. Declaring one army of a particular era the "best", requires a rather in depth analysis of many different armies from that era. Based on the points I made above, the cited article isn't a good source for that statement. A weaker statement, however, would not require nearly the same depth of analysis. A fairly general understanding of the armies at that time could yield a reliable conclusion that France's army was among the strongest. We can rely on a mainstream news article writers (including the cited article's writer) to at least have a "fairly general understanding" of the facts that support (or detract from) the statements that they make, and we can rely on them not to lie within their articles. So, for a statement to the effect that France's army was "one of the best at the time", this article qualifies as a reliable source (even if other sources might be more relevant and more appropriate as a source for that statement).
A potential concern with this approach is that the article doesn't refer to France's army as "one of the strongest" but simply as the "best". (As a side point, I don't have access to the article at a nearby library. Not all newspapers are available in all, or even the majority of, libraries, but availability isn't a requirement of Wikipedia sources. So I'm unconditionally willing to concede on any question regarding what an article says when I don't have access to it, to those who do have access to it. This includes, of course, the original editor who cited the article as referring to France's army as "the best of the time". So that point, for all practical purposes, is a point of agreement; the article says France's army was "the best of the time".) The point of disagreement is whether I can take the statement that France's army was "the best of the time" as a source for the statement that France's army was "one of the strongest at that time" without violating WP:OR. My reasoning was that it qualifies under the section WP:CALC. A key issue behind that reasoning is that the statement "France's army was one of the strongest armies at the time" isn't completely 'out of left field' with the statement the news article provides, that "France's army was the best army of the time". I don't feel that I'm simply 'coming up with my own view of what I perceive the newspaper article should have said' (to paraphrase your previous statement with regard to what my edit amounted to). The statement "France's army was one of the strongest armies at the time" is contained by the statement "France's army was the best army of the time" in a manner which is no less mathematical than the manner in which the statement "the rectangle was 20 sq. meters" is contained by the statement "the rectangle was 5 meters tall and 4 meters wide".
According to the standards set out in WP:CALC, in order to make a statement that isn't exactly the same as a source's statement on the basis of a routine calculation, the calculation being made should follow obviously from the source statement, it should be a correct calculation, and the statement that results from the calculation should be a meaningful reflection of what the source said, and furthermore that there should be consensus among editors as to whether all three standards have been met. Do you feel that it isn't correct to conclude that the statement "France's army was one of the strongest armies at that time" is contained by the statement "France's army was the best army of the time"? Do you feel that, even if the conclusion is correct, it isn't obvious? Do you feel that the statement "France's army was one of the strongest armies at that time" doesn't retain any meaning (or enough meaning) from the statement "France's army was the best of the time"?
Note for the third question that it doesn't necessarily need to contain all the meaning of the original statement. From the rectangle example above, the statement "the rectangle was 20 sq. meters" loses information about the height and width of the rectangle; they could be any pair of positive lengths that multiply to 20 sq. meters, whereas the original statement included the exact information on the value of each; the height was 5 meters and the width was 4 meters. If an editor decides that a statement about the rectangle's area is more appropriate for the article, they can still make that statement and they can still use the statement about the rectangles height and width as a source, even though they would be losing some information in doing so.
I decided that the statement that France's army was "one of the strongest" was more appropriate in part because the cited source would be reliable for that statement, whereas it wouldn't be an appropriate source for the much much stronger statement that France's army was "the best of the time". This isn't a judgement of what the new article should have said. If France truly did have the best military in 1862 (I honestly have no idea whether they did), then that's the information that should be communicated in the news article. That doesn't mean, however, that the article is a reliable source for that information. Based on my points in the first three paragraphs of this talk-page contribution, I don't think it is. It is, however, I think, a reliable source for the information that France's army was "one of the strongest", and that statement follows in a mathematically correct and obvious way from the from the statement that the article did make (and retains significant meaning from that statement) and therefore qualifies as an example of a routine calculation under WP:CALC.
I'm not undoing your revert, by the way. I don't think that's my call to make. I contributed what I felt was a positive edit to the article, and it got reverted by someone who honestly felt that it was a net loss for the article. If it truly was a positive edit, then the points that I've made here on the talk-page will carry the day, and ultimately the phrase will end up reflecting the those points (without excluding the possibility that it will also end up reflecting the points that you've made, if someone can find a way to integrate them). If it was truly a net loss for the article, then it ultimately won't be incorporated back into the article, and that's a good thing (obviously). Regardless of what the article ends up looking like, I've spent much more time and effort worrying about 5 words (or 7 in my proposed version) than I intended. As such, I don't intend on contributing further to the talk page discussion for this article. (Taking myself out of the talk-page discussion is also a reason why I don't feel it would be fair to undo your revert myself. Such an action should be reserved for someone who's willing, and able, to respond to points that you might make on this talk-page.) This isn't meant to be a way of stifling the discussion by leaving it; I genuinely don't have the time to participate in further discussion on an article that's outside of my normal field of interest. This also isn't meant to be a way of securing the 'last word' for myself. If there are counterpoints to be made against anything that I've said, by all means, make those counterpoints. That way the talk page will reflect the full discussion on this question (including whatever counterpoints you feel are appropriate). And feel free to take my points and make whatever decision you think will work best for the article. (Obviously, you're free to do that regardless; it just seemed courteous to explicitly recognize that fact.)
Finally, my intention not to continue contributing to this talk-page's discussion won't override my willingness to answer a question you might ask about one of my points, or to make a comment about one of your points if you specifically seek one from me. It's only fair that if I begin participating in the talk-page discussion, I don't just completely cut you off from any opportunity to ask for clarification on something that I've said. Thank you for your patience within our disagreement.--James Fahringer (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
James, I don't disagree with you in the generality of your comments. However, not eveything in life is always clear-cut or black-and-white. If fact, most things aren't. Two points: In the absence of sources that will satisfy even the most critical of reviewers, we have to use what is still reliable yet actually available, and let the reader decide. There is nothing wrong with that. The particular point that you have identified (I don't want to say "picked on"), we both seem to agree, does not represent a show-stopper in terms of fairly and impartially describing the 5 de mayo celebration. However, writing in our own ideas or perceptions is what I would have a problem with for it is for sure a show-stopper as, imo, is still a direct policy violation. If this is still not satisfactory to you, maybe you can think of other ways how that statement in the article could read and put it out for review. Thus, 2: The idea about linking to the Wikipedia article on "The Bulletin" is, imo, a good one, and I have reworded the statement to accomodate that. But, again, the one you concocted before is, immho, not the way to go. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Rv Cinco de Mayo and US civil war[edit]

I removed and to commemorate the cause of freedom and democracy during the first years of the [[American Civil War]].<ref name="egpnews9337">[http://egpnews.com/?p=9337 ''Cinco de Mayo: The Real Story.''] Cinco de Mayo: The Real Story, Part 1: While viewed as a Mexican holiday, the date has more meaning in the US. David E. Hayes-Bautista. Retrieved April 14, 2011.</ref> Ref did not work and made little sense. Jim1138 (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Jim, the reference given is properly cited. If it did not work, the proper method would be to tag it as such. "Making little sense" to you is tantamount to WP:I just don't like it - not a valid argument. My name is Mercy11 (talk), and I approve this message.

vandalism[edit]

Reverted date and content changing vandalism by IP and warned. --RichardMills65 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

analogy to st patricks day, chinese new year, oktoberfest[edit]

Is this analogy somehow supported by citation or just as an observance? If the latter I question the ostensible truthfulness of that analogy. No one consciously considers St. Patricks day a day to celebrate pride and heritage of being Irish in America. Chinese New Year is simply put, Chinese New Year and once again has nothing to do with pride or a celebration of being Chinese. Oktoberfest is quite clearly only about drinking (and though omitted, one can almost say that of St. Patricks as well). The closest you can come to it being about pride or heritage is with a clearly limited scope, such as food, drink, and attire meant to look humorous.

I write this not to try to elevate the status (though really it doesn't matter why, it only matters if it is true or not) of the holiday above others, but that it truly is an unprecedented celebration of a foreign heritage within a country not directly related to the origins of it's events. While not technically their independance day, it's celebrated as such by many Mexican Americans, and seems more akin to celebrating the fourth of July in Canada, if we like analogies.

24.255.144.59 (talk)anon (no I have no idea what I'm doing heh) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC).

I agree with some of what you say and have removed the statement for various reasons. One is that the statement is speculative: the "perhaps" was a dead giveaway. Another is the article is fine without it: the comparison doesn't, imo. add any value to the article. Another yet is that the citation given doesn't support the comparison, thus leading to a potential WP:OR. The statement appears to have been just an editorial observation by a contributors. If that was the case, it should not be in the body of the article but, at best, in the footnotes.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Edit request on 3 May 2012[edit]

Hello im from Mexico and for me is clear that the battle of Puebla is more important to Mexico, well was fighted in Mexico, so the first two lines of the wiki page for Cinco de mayo in english are totally wrong

Text says: "It is celebrated nationwide in the United States and regionally in Mexico, primarily in the state of Puebla,[1][2][3][4] where the holiday is called El Dia de la Batalla de Puebla"

and should be: "It is celebrated nationwide in the United States and all Mexico, primarily in the state of Puebla where the hemicicle monument to the "niños heroes" (hero kids) ,[1][2][3][4], in all Mexico the holiday is called El Dia de la Batalla de Puebla"

Cinco de mayo is not like the Independence Day but is very important.

Another fact is the paricipation of USA, im not totally secure but i think USA don't take part in any battle of the conflict with france. Punktoy (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Punktoy, unfortunately Wikipedia is not about what "is clear to [us]", but about what can be cited as documented by secondary reliable sources. We are talking about the verifiablity policy. Right now the text is citing 4 sources to support what it states. If you wish to oppose the information currently there, you will need to provide some secondary reliable sources that support your view.
As for France, I am not sure what statement in the text you are referring to.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Although important to Mexico, it is not as important as 16 September or 20 November. And the example is this year, in which activities will be as any other day. It is a civic holiday in the country, but a statutory holiday in Puebla, Tlaxcala, and I think Morelos. As Mercy said, reliable sources are needed to make a change. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Mercy11: it must be changed, May 5th is an important day to all Mexico, I am Mexican, and as all the Mexicans I live it, it is inculcated since the primary school.
The source that you mention is not reliable, is a tourism guide to Mexico, not an academic source like an history book or article. See what I wrote to Punktoy.
There is an effort since 1986 to erase all history in the mind of the Mexicans, due to traitor governments. They do that in order to dominate the country, unfortunately they have been very efficient on that task. Read what I explained above.
But that does not mean that the May 5th is not important. It is regrettable but, since 1986 this country was programmed to become more and more ignorant.
Above edit by User:201.141.174.181 on 14:23, 5 May 2012.
Although Punktoy is a little confused, he is right with this petition. I agree that it is not correct to say that this date is only a regional celebration. See my answer to Punktoy in the next paragraph.
The sources cited by the article are not reliable academic history texts. Are mainly touristic information about Mexico.
Above edit by User:201.141.174.181 on 14:49, 5 May 2012.

Punktoy are you really mexican?, Have you approved your history courses?[edit]

The hemicicle a Los Niños Héroes is in Chapultepec in Mexico City.
Los Niños Heroes died during the EEUU invasion to Mexico, in the Chapultepec Castle the military academy at that time. An event previous to the French invasion.
One of the Niños Heroes were from La Sierra de Puebla, maybe that is the reason of your confusion.
But I agree with you in what respects to change the assertion that "this day is a regionally celebration in Mexico" to "all Mexico", it is! That day the military service recruits along the country give a loyalty oath to the nation.
The source cited, (1) is a page for tourism, not a reliable source for a historic fact. There is maybe a bias in that page due to the intention to promote tourism to Puebla in that day.
Other regrettable fact is that many Mexicans, mostly the younger, ignore why this date is celebrated, it is even confused with February 5th, the Constitution anniversary. The reason is a planed dismantlement of the education system. Many subjects have been significantly reduced or even eliminated from the curricula.
Also many revisionist conservative pseudo-historians supported and promoted by the recent right-wing ultra-conservative governments. That is the reason of possible vandalism in pages about Mexican history. Specially in the xix century when the liberal party issued the laws to proclaiming the freedom of beliefs and religious tolerance and a secular state, Las Leyes de Reforma, before that the only possible religion was the catholic.
The present right-wing government of Mexico is trying to revert this reform, with a counter-reform allowing the catholic church to have more political participation.
There is still a TOTAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in Mexico, if the right-wing parties PAN and PRI keep dominating the country, this may change due to an alliance with the catholic church since the regime of Carlos Salinas de Gortari who reestablished diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and other changes towards this counter-reform trend.
"Cinco de mayo is not like the Independence Day but is very important." I also agree with you in this point.
If that battle were not wined and Maximiliano de Hausburgo where not defeated, the history of the whole American Continent could be very different.
That was envisioned at that time, for that reason Mexico received support from other countries that where liberated from the Spanish kingdom.
"Another fact is the participation of USA, im not totally secure but i think USA don't take part in any battle of the conflict with france." They did not participate in any battle against France, but the USA recognized Mexico as an independent country.
That was in part due to the negotiation of Mechor Ocampo, who had to sign the McLane-Ocampo treat, that was not approved by the US Congress and is distorted by the revisionist conservative pseudo-historians trying to discredit Benito Juarez, and his very illustrated liberal cabinet, loyal to the country who opposed the conservatory party that supported the incursion of the French army because they wanted to revert the Reform Laws and let the Catholic church to rule the country again, the conservative party also brought a foreign emperor to rule Mexico. But they were so ignorants that they brought a liberal army and emperor who supported a secular state.
Without those great men, Mexico, would not exist as an independent nation, maybe other Latin American countries could follow. Those liberals were real heroes, but are still hated by the catholic church who never forgave the lost of all their privileges and the cancellation to the return of European rulers.
Above comments entered by User:201.141.174.181 on 07:48, 5 May 2012

The page is locked[edit]

You have locked the page, I can't do the change or improve the content. I know that there are persons insanely watching this kind of pages to change them to support the revisionist conservative pseudo-historians in the quest to degrade all those people that forged this nation. They can be fanatic catholics manipulated by members of the catholic church or even people hired by some government agencies in charge of doing propaganda. This kind of entries is always subject to such attacks. You must be more strict with which sources to consider reliable, trust just academic work with quotations of original documents, discharge historic novel and of course tourism information pages. This is a very hard work to do, but you decided to be in charge of this pages and locked them to be the only rulers. Good lock, I hope the mistakes are that not part of the people in charge to distort the history of Mexico. Above comments entered by User:201.141.174.181 on 07:48, 5 May 2012.

Every year there is a lot of vandalism (even when May 5 is not near). The page will be unprotected automatically tomorrow, so you can do the changes. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Reply to anonymous user 201.141.174.181: Just wanted to comment that Tbhotch is correct. For years this page has been vandalized throughout the year and vandalisim goes up enormously starting some 3-4 weeks before each May 5.
181, this article is not owned by anyone. You are more than welcomed to edit it and, in fact, you are encouraged to do so. WE DO NEED HELP!.
So how do you edit locked articles? First, become a registered user, that is, do not edit anonymously. Next edit various non-locked articles. Don't quote me 100% on this but, as I recall, Wikipedia has a policy that newly registered users need to perform some 10 edits and have been registered for at least 4 days before they can edit locked articles. (Actually this is a simplified version of the article protection policy, as there are locks that have considerably stricter requirements, but that was not the case with the Cinco de Mayo article.) Finally, consider sticking around for the next round of Cinco de Mayo vandalism surge,,, yes that means 5 May 2013. We will be happy that you help improve the content, help add reliable sources, and help control vandalism.
BTW, please don't forget to sign your edits to talk pages with the 4 squiggles (~). Happy editing!!! My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

awaiting scholarly sources[edit]

The article should be supported by scholarly sources. There are volumes of books regarding Mexican history to fill a library. However, not a single book is cited. There are fine sources in English, e.g.Triumphs and Tragedies: a History of the Mexican People (WW Norton & Co, 1993), Ruiz, Ramón Eduardo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguilayserpiente (talkcontribs) 17:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be further research, since el cinco de mayo is commemorated with military parades and re-enactments throughout Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguilayserpiente (talkcontribs) 23:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Take out profanity under history.[edit]

There's always a jerk out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.76.36 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2012[edit]

The mobile version Says "shut the f*** up" under history.

207.6.160.123 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

{done}} Already removed. Try purging it. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2012[edit]

Please remove "As far away as the island of Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, revelers are encouraged to drink Mexican beer on May 5.[1]" since the article quoted is mainly an article advertising the return of Corona distribution to Malta, but does not really prove that Cinco de Mayo is celebrated. In fact this event as to my knowledge was not repeated after 2008.

213.165.190.226 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012[edit]

mr:सिंको दे मायो PrathamMarathi 20:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --NeilN talk to me 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Events after the battle[edit]

I have marked the text reading "Due in large part to the withdrawal of French troops by Napoleon III in 1866 – 1867" as Failed Verification/Original Research because the WP:good faith edits have 2 shortcomings: (1) The effect of the edit is to make the paragrapgh mean that the U.S. was able to provide more assistance to Mexico to expel the French due in large part to the withdrawal of French troops by Napoleon III in 1866 – 1867. However, the citation given doesn't say, or imply to say, that anywhere in that page that I can see; (2) for that sort of entry to be made, the citation given must contain the clear Cause-Effect relationship that the editor is adjudicating with his edit. However, the citation given doesn't present that sort of C-E relationship. That is, the citation cannot just talk about the French withdrawing from Mexico and the US help to Mexico on the same page: that's not enough. It must actually link the two events in a C-E relationship. Jumping to a Cause Effect relationship when none has been stated by Meyer and Beezley, would be tantamount to WP:OR.

As a side note, on the "in large part" part, (3) even if the citation given did say that the US started helping Mexico fight the French as a result of the French withdrawal (which, as I stated already, it doesn't), nowhere does it say that that particular event of the French withdrawal was, of two events (the other being the end of the US Civil War) the primary one. As such, the use of the phrase "in large part" just before introducing the French withdrawal as a reason, is not warranted.

I have, for the time being left the entry intact, pending response/feedback/discussion from the wp:good faith editor(s) involved, or other parties, but will remove it summarily if no reasonable response is received timely. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

good point, so I rewrote the section, Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what your goal is; it reads unnecessarily wordy. Fact is, the US helped the Mexicans after its civil war was over because it (the US) could not get involved in helping Mexico while their civil war was still ongoing. That's the only fact that is documented so far as it relates to the Mexicans deposing Maximilano. If anything, your citation from Meyer and Beezley can serve to show that Maximiliano retreated (not just "withdrew") from Mexico because the Mexicans had created conditions described as "savage ferocity" for the French troops in Mexico. If your goal is to beef up the paragrapgh a bit, the way it looks so far, imo, is not helping. Let's stick to the facts. You may want to discuss further, or even give it another try on the text, but the original version was a lot closer to what we can demonstrate so far as actually documented. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Size of the two armies[edit]

I have reverted the good-faith edits by Wikigi regarding the size of the armies for 3 reasons. (1) The History Channel is a much better known and more reliable source than the newly introduced "Fondation Napoléon" source. (2) The 7,000 French army number from the Fondation Napoléon is actually incorrect in the Fondation Napoléon article itself: 3,500 + 4,500 = 8,000 (not 7,000), lending reason to wonder how many other details in the Fondation Napoléon article could also be wrong. (3) The 12,000 Mexican army number, while attributed in the Fondation Napoléon's article to "according to French sources", fails to indicate what sources those are (the sources section at the bottom of the Fondation Napoléon article do not provide the answer). As a result, the previous numbers (8,000 French vs. 4,000 Mexicans) continue to offer the most reliable (and most commonly, or near most commonly, reported) figures. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

On October 26, I added an indisputable source coming from a French général, Gustave Léon Niox, who published his memoirs only 12 years after the events, in 1874, with a link for direct consultation of page 162, where he states "General Zaragoza had about 12,000 men under his command" (General Gustave Léon Niox book, Expédition du Mexique : 1861-1867, published in 1874 by Librairie militaire de J. Dumaine, p. 162 Read online). I don't see how this information could be discarded again like you did here and here. We all know that reports on wars and armed conflicts are always conflicting depending to sides providing information, numbers are more than shady here as each source gives a different account for each parties. As for your point #2, Fondation Napoleon indicate that "3,500 had arrived 8 January, 1862, and Napoleon III decided (9 January) to send a further 4,500 reinforcements, which arrived at Vera Cruz 6 March, 1862", it doesn't mean that they were all part of the Puebla battle. Most if not all sources, including Mexican sources, give a number of 6,500 French troup (6,000 here : La Batalla del Cinco de Mayo de 1862 [ - Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos de la Revolución Mexicana). There is no "absolute truth" here, and as it is common practice in most history books, all numbers should be presented with their sources to the reader. - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have re-introduced the mention of 12,000 Mexican troupe today. Of course, I didn't swap numbers, but merely mentioned the existence of a different account (a simple footnote in Battle of Puebla and a mention here in Cinco de Mayo) - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I hold no objection that, when sources disagree, the matter be presented as a disagreement. But for this to occur, the sources have to be of equally (or relatively equal) reliability. An enemy troops estimate report by an officer of the losing camp (the French) is hardly a reliable source when compared to a source that is not even Mexican in origin, but which is a third party to the conflict: The History Channel. And now we have also come across a second reliable source -- PBS-- to support the 8,000 French force size. Once more, the Fondation Napoléon, does not comply with the WP:RS policy, so it cannot be a player here. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
What are you talking about ? The History Channel is.. a TV Channel, in what way is that a reliable source ? I have brought here a primary source under the form of a direct testimony published in 1874 by an officer who was actually there. The second source comes from Fondation Napoléon, this well known foundation is based in Paris and have digitized dozen of historical documents (actual documents) pertaining to that period and hold a large library on the First and Second Empires. To pretend it doesn't comply with the WP:RS is just plain ludicrous. Of course French and Mexican accounts vary, just like American and Afghan or Iraqi accounts do vary for the current conflicts, that's what History is about, reporting all accounts. If you revert this well documented point again, I will put the matter up for mediation. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that you even dispute the numbers provided by the National Institute of Historical Studies on the Mexican Revolution. Not sure what to make of that.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • With the exception of the Fondation Napoléon site, all sources state the mexican army was considerably smaller than the French army. The fact that the winning army was the smaller army is what matters here - not so much the actual numbers (of course, other than the fact the size difference was not insignificant). Different sources have different numbers, but they all agree the Mexican Army was smaller. We could word it to represent that, then add a note with the details. We cannot have text that contradicts itself. One more thing, per WP:TPG, this is the place for discussion, not in the edit summaries of the articles. To clarify, it is not necessarily the FN the problem sources here but the report by a soldier from the French Army. That cannot be considered neutral. I would tell you the same thing about a report from the Mexican side (from a Mexican soldier). When something cannot be considered neutral, we don't start looking for opposing equally non-neutral sources to even it out: we simply don't include it. That is, two opposing non-neutral sources don't add up to one good source. To use your example, we don't write in reports from the US Army or Al-Queida when they are parties to the conflict under discussion: they are not neutral. Reliable reports come from independent sources such as the press, historians, research centers, universities, etc. When there are reliable, third party sources that provide the information, there is no need (and it would be self-defeating) to get into "reporting all accounts", in particular if such accounts come from involved parties: such sources are not reliable sources to begin with. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
    FYI, a request for mediation has been filed. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Problems?[edit]

I think the Cinco de Mayo page needs to be reconciled with the Battle of Puebla page. To be honest, this page feels like it's cheerleading instead of reporting facts and cherry-picking sources to promote the importance of Cinco de Mayo.

Some examples:

5 de Mayo page: "...the date is observed to commemorate the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces... The 8,000-strong French army attacked the much smaller and poorly equipped Mexican army of 4,500. Yet, on May 5, 1862, the Mexicans managed to decisively crush the French army, then considered "the premier army in the world.""

Puebla page: "Zaragoza retreated to Puebla which was heavily fortified – it had been held by the Mexican government since the Reform War. ... against all advice, Lorencez decided to attack Puebla from the north. ... Lorencez was led to believe that the people of Puebla were friendly to the French, and that the Mexican Republican garrison which kept the people in line would be overrun by the population once he made a show of force. ... The French artillery had run out of ammunition, so the third infantry attack went unsupported."

The Puebla page seems to explain what happened pretty factually. The 5 de Mayo page, on the other hand, is pretty value laden.

>>Was the victory "unlikely"? According to the Puebla page the city was heavily fortified and Lorencez was advised not to attack, so from a military strategy perspective this is at least a debatable assertion.

>>"The 8,000-strong French army attacked the much smaller and poorly equipped Mexican army of 4,500." First, the term "much smaller" is value-laden. If we're giving troop size, readers should determine for themselves if that is "much smaller" or not. Second, the Puebla page says the French had 6,000 troops to Mexico's 4,500. That should be reconciled. One of the sources cited no longer exists online. The other source (the PBS source) says it was 6,000 to 4,000. I think the author was cherry picking to make the battle seem more disproportionate.

>> Mexicans "decisively crush[ed]" the French army. Puebla says 80 killed to 460 killed, armies retreat. Is that a "decisive crushing"?

The statements that France would've joined the confederacy had it won Puebla seems pretty unbelievable as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.98.158 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

05:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edits I suggested. I also took a look at the Significance section and got rid of that too. The notes in their were essentially a debate that should have occurred in the talk pages. One of the significance quotes uses incorrect numbers so should not have been there. The other incorrectly states that the Battle of Puebla was the last European invasion of South America. It was not. See, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincha_Islands_War.

I made a lot of edits so I can imagine there won't be agreement on every one. Hopefully people re-edit what I've done rather than just revert it so some of that work can stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.98.158 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted those edits. One hour is not reasonable time for allowing other editors to respond to your proposed changes. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
There is no rule that minor edits cannot be made without discussion. Frankly, Mercy11, you seem to be the petty tyrant of this page. As I read the comments just about everyone seems to think you are creating a biased and unfounded view of this event. Maybe instead of reverting you can change just those elements you think are wrong. Also, maybe instead of hiding behind a reversion you can discuss which of my points you deal with. 108.206.98.158 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Below are my comments on your edits.
  • I think the Cinco de Mayo page needs to be reconciled with the Battle of Puebla page.:
These are two different articles; per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, no reconcilation is needed.
  • To be honest, this page feels like it's cheerleading instead of reporting facts and cherry-picking sources to promote the importance of Cinco de Mayo.:
Thanks for your honesty, however, per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, you need to provides encyclopedically-worthy factual information in order to make your case for a change. You have failed to do this.
  • "...the date is observed to commemorate the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces... The 8,000-strong French army attacked the much smaller and poorly equipped Mexican army of 4,500. Yet, on May 5, 1862, the Mexicans managed to decisively crush the French army, then considered 'the premier army in the world.'":
If you read the previous discussions in his talk page (for example,ONE and ONE), you will see that this matter has been discussed by numerous other editors (not just myself) and the final consensus for facts and wording is as you found it in the article. I also suggest you follow and get familiar with the links to the citations already given in the article, as they provide the references necessary to back up any factual information given. As such, per WP:RS, your changes are inadmissible.
  • "Puebla page: 'Zaragoza retreated to Puebla which was heavily fortified – it had been held by the Mexican government since the Reform War. ... against all advice, Lorencez decided to attack Puebla from the north. ... Lorencez was led to believe that the people of Puebla were friendly to the French, and that the Mexican Republican garrison which kept the people in line would be overrun by the population once he made a show of force. ... The French artillery had run out of ammunition, so the third infantry attack went unsupported.' :
This matter is not from this article; per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, your argument is not valid.
  • The Puebla page seems to explain what happened pretty factually. The 5 de Mayo page, on the other hand, is pretty value laden.:
You are being too vague ("The 5 de Mayo page...is pretty value laden") in your statement. If you are more specific, as you have already been for some of your other objections, perhaps we could engage in a discussion.
  • >>Was the victory "unlikely"? According to the Puebla page the city was heavily fortified and Lorencez was advised not to attack, so from a military strategy perspective this is at least a debatable assertion.:
Without entering into a discussion about the other article (Battle of Puebla) here --this discussion is not about that other article-- these two words/phrases/statements are not mutually exclusive, which is what you are implying. The wording here ("unlikely") is entirely valid, and it comes from the citations provided. Per WP:RS, I don't see how your argument here can make any headway.
  • >>"The 8,000-strong French army attacked the much smaller and poorly equipped Mexican army of 4,500." First, the term "much smaller" is value-laden. If we're giving troop size, readers should determine for themselves if that is "much smaller" or not. Second, the Puebla page says the French had 6,000 troops to Mexico's 4,500. That should be reconciled. One of the sources cited no longer exists online. The other source (the PBS source) says it was 6,000 to 4,000. I think the author was cherry picking to make the battle seem more disproportionate.:
The term "much smaller" is as provided by the source. I suggest you get yourself a copy of the source document (David E. Hayes-Batista. El Cinco de Mayo: An American Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 2012. p. 59), if you have not done so yet, and check this out for yourself. Per WP:RS, your argument has no foundation. As for your second objection, if the "Puebla page has different figures, then, IMO, the Puebla page is the page that would need to be changed. This is because the facts have been more exhaustively verified on this page than those the Puebla page.
  • >> Mexicans "decisively crush[ed]" the French army. [The Puebla page] says 80 killed to 460 killed, armies retreat. Is that a "decisive crushing"?:
Once more, this is not a forum to discuss matters related to other articles such as Battle of Puebla. However, the fact is that the citation provided (The Bulletin: Philadelphia's Family Newspaper, "Cinco De Mayo: Join In The Celebration On The Fifth Of May", May 7, 2009. By Cheryl VanBuskirk. Retrieved May 10, 2010.) does use the phrase "decisively crush." Again, per WP:RS, there is no room for an objection here.
  • The statements (sic) that France would've joined the confederacy had it won Puebla seems pretty unbelievable as well...:
Per WP:ILIKEIT Wikipedia editing is not about what editors choose to believe or not believe. Or maybe you are misreading the article or its citation. The article does not say that "France would've joined the Confederacy", as you state, but that France would have come to the aid of the Confederate Army ("France would have gone to the aid of the South in the U.S. Civil War"). In any event, per WP:RS, the citation provided backs up that information as presented by reliable secondary sources and, as such, your objection is invalid.
  • I also took a look at the Significance section and got rid of that too. The notes in their were essentially a debate that should have occurred in the talk pages. One of the significance quotes uses incorrect numbers so should not have been there. The other incorrectly states that the Battle of Puebla was the last European invasion of South America. It was not. See, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincha_Islands_War.:
Unfortunately that page, Chincha Islands War, is not well documented (in fact has been marked with a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for over two years). Once there are sufficient references to validate your objection (or if you care to provide the RSes necessary yourself either in this talk page or by improving the Chincha Is War article - I dont care), we can discuss this point.
One overarching problem with your edits is the categorization that the removal of an entire section from an article qualifies as "minor edits". That is not correct. Also incorrect is that a 3+K change (the approximate size of your edit) also qualifies as "minor edits". That too is not correct. In fact, you admitted yourself that your edits were not "minor": "I made a lot of edits so I can imagine ..."
I hope I have provided you with the necessary information to explain why I had to revert your edits. The facts is, you not only failed to provide reasonable time for others to make comments, but your objections were not valid either as I have shown you here.
By the way, it's not a matter of my acting tyranically, as you stated; if you do your homework on the history of changes to this page, you will discover this page receives considerable vandalism. Maybe you would be willing to join me to help keep it abuse-free?
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

About your Third Opinion request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Mercy11 has made a substantial response to 108.206.98.158's edits. If 108 wishes to pursue those edits, s/he really needs to discuss Mercy11's responses at length before resorting to dispute resolution, especially (but not only) in light of the substantial amount of time which has passed since that response was made. If after substantial back-and-forth discussion a standstill is reached, dispute resolution can then be considered. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Falklands War[edit]

What about the Falklands War? Does that count as an invasion? 66.66.64.52 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The War of the Falklands War was fought in the Americas but the Islands were invaded by a military from the Americas (the Argentine military). They were subsequently attacked (not invaded) by the UK. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Removed as Original Research[edit]

The claim "It originated with and is celebrated primarily by Mexican Americans in the United States" is not found in the citation given, and has been removed as a violation as WP:OR policy. The edit summary by the editor "(it's a US - based celebration)" has nothing to do with the claim that "It originated with and is celebrated primarily by Mexican Americans". These claims need to be backed up with verifiable citations, and the stated citation failed verification. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The reliable sources say it: says historian David E. Hayes-Bautista: "The Cinco de Mayo is not, in its origins, a Mexican holiday at all but rather an American one, created by Latinos in California in the middle of the 19th century." [cite David E. Hayes-Bautista, "El Cinco de Mayo: An American Tradition (2011) p 11]. He says "It is scarcely celebrated in Mexico" (p 11) The text is available at amazon.com for anyone to verify. Rjensen (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the text is also available at local libraries, as in my case, and page 11 doesn't mention the word "Mexican-Americans" or "primarily"at all. I do not object to the generality of your thoughts (and, in fact, I invited you to check the history of edits to this article over the last 3 years), but in the specifics your edits in this regard are portraying the idea that this is a celebration of Mexican-Americans -and only Mexican Americans- in the U.S. Per the photos in this articles, that would make President George W. Bush a Mexican-American, plus the bunch of college-aged kids that celebrate this holiday (whether at parades or at bars) Mexican-Americans as well. If you have citations to support this, fine...it gets put into the article. But in the meantime it boils down to OR. Per WP:CONSENSUS, do not make any changes to the items under dispute, until this matter is resolved, here, in this Talk Page. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
The author says it was founded in the US by Californios and is scarcely celebrated in Mexico. Go with the RS, please. not with bullshit about Bush. (all politicians and lots of kids attend multiple ethnic parades) Rjensen (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You and I are both saying that the holiday is celebrated by multiple ethnic groups. With that said, we cannot then turn around and claim that it is celebrated primarily by Mexican-Americans or the article would contradict itself. So there is no support for stating in the lead that it "is celebrated primarily by Mexican Americans in the United States". I have not seen any citation -- Hayes-Bautista included -- that states Cinco de Mayo was "founded" by anyone or anyone group in the United States. If you want to use that terminology you will need to find a citation with page number for verification.
BTW, let's stick to the issue at hand here and leave masked profanity for other forums. Per Wikipedia civility rules I am only interested in an intelligent exchange of ideas that will lead to a resolution, and masked profanity doesn't impress me as very thoughtful. Provide your WP:V verifiable supporting citations and I will check them and respond. Just pointing to Hayes-Batista is not sufficient for verification.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Introduction[edit]

First paragraph makes it sound like it is an American holiday. It should be emphisized that it is a Mexican holiday also observed in other countries which have Mexican minorities. And also the real origin of the holiday should be emphasized (1862 victory). In my opinion, the first paragraph is confusing and misleading. FYI I am neither American nor Mexican. I have just come here to find out about Cinco de Mayo and as usual I had to refer to other reliable sources such as Britannica because this article (especially the first paragraph) is a mess as a result of national/regional agendas.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"However, all public schools are closed nation-wide in Mexico on May 5"


I don't think this is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD51:92D0:E091:2063:41A3:D597 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Added May 4, 23:56 -4 GMT: "It should say that is a holiday celebrated in Mexico, and by the Mexican Community, not as if it were a national holiday of the United States of America, as this only furthers the representation of Latin America as accessory to the USA, and reinforces the structure of dependence, as well as creating appropriation of the holiday. This is a Mexican holiday, and despite everyone being invited to participate, it should be emphasised its Mexican, not American as in of the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.104.70 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Consequences for the United States section[edit]

This section was debated over in 2010 above in this talk page and I agree with the objection of the source for menudo recipe on history of Cinco as not WP:RS yet shockingly this paragraph remained:

Some historians have argued that France's real goal was to help break up the American Union, at the time in the midst of a civil war, by helping the southern Confederacy:[2] "The Mexicans had won a great victory that kept Napoleon III from supplying the confederate rebels for another year, allowing the United States to build a powerful army. This grand army smashed the Confederates at Vicksburg and Gettysburg just 14 months after the battle of Puebla, essentially ending the Civil War." The consequence of Cinco de Mayo to the United States has been thus recognized: "The defeat of the French army had consequences for America as well...the French defeat denied Napoleon III the opportunity to resupply the Confederate rebels for another year."[3]

  1. ^ Celebration in Malta. Accessed 2008-05-05.
  2. ^ "Viva Cinco de Mayo". Viva Cinco de Mayo. Retrieved 5 May 2011. 
  3. ^ "''Cinco De Mayo: History of the Holiday.'' Huffington Post". Huffingtonpost.com. 5 May 2009. Retrieved 5 May 2011. 

Source 2 doesn't exist anymore and I can not find a RS that isn't quoting Wikipedia when searching. The North's army didn't greatly outnumber the Souths and Vicksburg was only won by siege and the losses at Gettysburg were the worst of the war with 23k from Northern forces and 28k from the South. The North didn't smash the south.

Source 3 is Huffpo which states it is drawing from THIS Wikipedia article for a source so that is a circular source.

If anyone can find some scholar to support the above paragraph then restore it but name the scholar and avoid circular sourcing.

What is left of the section names the scholars and gives their opinions and pretty much says all the things that the removed paragraph had. Alatari (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You statements are perhaps somewhat in the gray line for the two sources you mention. However, the section still needs an introductory line that summarizes and introduces what's coming up so as to "ease" the reader into the new section. It would not be too encyclopeidc to have a section open up with quotes and end with quotes as well. Also, let's remember that merely because a given cite "doesn't exist anymore", as you stated, that is not enough strong reason to remove it - instead we are directed to mark it {{dead link}}. The basis for such guidleine is WP:AGF. IAE, if the section was debated in 2010 and stayed, the matter was settled by consensus. I am not just now going to challenge you on that, since WP:CCC. But to determine whether consensus HAS changed, the proper way to do it is to follow the directions at WP:CON. Again, I am not going to challenge you at this point since you appear to be proceeding in good faith. The statement "the French defeat denied Napoleon III the opportunity to resupply the Confederate rebels for another year" is no too debatable; but I agree that a stronger source is better that Huffington. On the plus side, I agree with you that the (US) North's army didn't greatly outnumber the South, that Vicksburg was only won by siege, that the losses at Gettysburg were the worst of the war, and that the North didn't smash the South. Good eye. Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I am so tempted to have the line look like this when I see a sentence start off with Some historians

Some historians[who?] have argued that France's real goal was to help break up the American Union, at the time in the midst of a civil war, by helping the southern Confederacy.

but I now see you are referring to the historians in the rest of the section. I'll make a one word change to These so there is no confusion.
The questions that screams in my head is "Why would France want to help the Confederacy? How would it help their nation?" I want more answers. Alatari (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's not start WW III here over some choice of word. An introduction is just that - an introduction. It is not meant to say everything that follows. And it edges on WP:POV to use the "These" level of specificy unless we, editors, are trying to express disagreement or to show isolation. Taking a step back and looking at the statement with the "These", it no longer displays an impartial, neutral, and encyclopedic tone. The fact is that some historians do say what is given there, and we don't need to overqualify what is already obvious by being overly precise. As such, I have to disagree with you on that. (The fact is that just as you were not confused, the average reader won't either.) If you still disagree, you can follow WP:DISPUTE, and open up a RfC, etc. Also, I remind you that this article is not about France or the Confederacy, but about a holiday - and we should keep it there. There are tools, such as hatnotes, {{Main}} and {{See also}} templates, etc., to deal with other questions that scream to be answered. Mercy11 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Before I modified the first sentence it was confusing. I'll be adding a further template. Alatari (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Edit, May 1, 2014[edit]

Please remove the sentence "Brothers give their sisters 5 american dollars in appreciation of the holiday". This sentence was inserted at 2 locations in the article, in 2 revisions by 72.220.72.42, occurring at 03:12, 30 April, 2014 and 03:15, 30 April 2014. Clearly somewhere a sister / vandal is hoping for 5 dollars early next week.

Done! Mercy11 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014[edit]

The Monroe Doctrine was the reason no other country invaded Mexico. the U.S. making it an american holiday is out of order, the U.S. did not have any troops involved nor did the south, it may be that France wanted the south to win but they could not. no factories no fresh troops the north had all kinds of immigrants, especially from Irland. so the battle did not have any fuction to the U.S., it is a way to try to get favorable treatment to immigrate to the U.S., nothing other than that, americans being fat, dumb and stupid may give the country away but I won't. 2602:30A:2E23:1C70:7568:D9C0:E91B:FF8F (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That is just your point of view, not an edit request.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content[edit]

Reinserted content removed by Edward321, please discuss the changes here. Edit summaries aren't enough for major edits like those. The removals are objectionable per WP:RS. Mercy11 (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed no sourced content. I have reduced the prominence of a theory held by only one professor. This theory probably should be listed, but without independent sources supporting it, the theory does not belong in the lede and need to be clearly identified as being a theory. There were no independent sources supporting the theory, they were additional news articles quoting the professor's theory. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

what is the meaning of the expression "Cinco de Mayo"[edit]

is it Spanish, a location, a proverb?--Heebi (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It means Fifth of May.The article says this at the very start. Edward321 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)