Talk:Saint Patrick's Battalion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mexico (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

External links[edit]

Yesterday, I added a note indicating that the last link on the external links list was a site that required paid membership before one could see the article in question. Today, I see that said note had been removed. Can anyone explain why? Thanks.--Theoldanarchist 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
After seeing that Infrogmation had removed my note refered to above, I went ahead and deleted the last link altogether.--Charles 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I meant to remove the link all together, as it can not be accessed without payment. -- Infrogmation 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was probably your intention. Frankly, I'd like to read the article in question, but I'm not paying to do so. --Charles 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Cerro Gordo[edit]

The phrase ", almost single-handedly winning the Battle of Cerro Gordo" suggests that the Mexican Army and the San Patricios won the Battle of Cerro Gordo, which they clearly did not.

POV[edit]

The whole tone of this article, from the opening paragraph, is sharply POV, arguably religiously. Attaching Lincoln to the its last sentence, for example, is grossly POV; Lincoln did not commit treason, however strong his feelings against the war. All the information given could be addressed in a neutral voice and still be valuable. Allegations that "protestant American officers encouraged desecration, condoned rape etc." needs to be documented by source citation, since as written it implies it was common and accepted practice, which it was not. Methinks the author is either very young or has an axe to grind.--Buckboard 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article improvements[edit]

I'd still like to make this article better, but I'm pretty sure I've hit a dead end in terms of what I can personally do for it. Ways to improve this article would be to:

  • Go into more details about the Saint Patrick's Battalion flag, of which there was reportedly more than one.
  • Have somebody who knows more about Mexican history & speaks Spanish to determine wether any more battle reports from General Anaya exist & wether they give more details about the battalion.
  • Find more references & citatations.

Provided the latter two things are done I dont see any reason why this cant be a good article or even a featured one. By the way why is this considered part of the law WikiProject? Speaking of Wikiprojects, this should be apart of the Mexican one. --Fennessy 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion of this entry, Fennessy, because I think it will be helpful for future editors to see what was previously discussed as far as article improvements are concerned. ---Cathal 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha sure no problem, I thought I'd covered the whole flag thing since writing this entry, and also realised the wiki law project marker was added by a bot, making those parts abit irrelevant, but whatever. Glad you think people might find it useful I guess!

Someone may want to:

  • go into detail regarding the background of John Riley, the battalion's commanding officer. He evidently was a "soldier of fortune" who had deserted the British army as well. (P1340) 16 March 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.5.53 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2008 (68.126.5.53 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)(68.126.5.53 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Added an external link to John Riley (song by Tim O'Brien) under the music links and added another link to the Jon Riley Wikipedia entry in the 'see also' list. There's some discrepancy in spelling (John/Jon) and on the Wikipedia Jon Riley entry there is a link to the song on YouTube, but that seems to be defunct ---Npshiels (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)npshiels

Fair use rationale for Image:Irish st Patricks battalion stamp.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Irish st Patricks battalion stamp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact/POV tags[edit]

I tagged this article with fact, POV and tone tags. I am surprised that this had not been done already given the rampant POV. I know it is an article that people feel strongly about, but encyclopaedic values must be maintained. Barbara Wainscott 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You inexplicably deleted some factually accurate information, but other than that the edits were vaild. The fact markers are needed and can easily be filled in with the relevent sources in the next few days, but I'm taking down the POV and tone tags unless you can get specific about what you object to that remains in the article. Fennessy 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty OK with the current version. One minor quibble is that, grammatically
Irishmen, Germans, Swiss, Scotsmen and other European Catholics of European descent
should read as Irish, Germans, Swiss, Scots and other Catholics of European descent.

Another is: Unfortunately, this was also considered true of the 5,000 Irish emigres who had fought honorably on the U.S. side in the Mexican-American War by their American contemporaries - what does this mean??

Thanks,Barbara Wainscott 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the Irishmen/scotsmen thing. Its just how people talk I guess.
As for your second point, I actually have no idea what it means. I recieved alot of input from Hogan(the author mentioned in the reference section) when writing this article. Feel free to modify/delete it. Fennessy 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Erin Go Bragh!"[edit]

what does the slogan mean? Amendezg (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My Gaelic is not great, so this is not an exact translation, but it basically means "Long live Ireland". ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"Erin Go Bragh" is an anglicisation of the Irish "Éirinn go brách". Which (as you note) might be translated as "Ireland forever". It is equivalent to "Éirinn go deo", and is not easily translated literally, but is roughly equivalent to "Ireland until eternity". (Compare "Ireland until the end (of time)", or "Ireland until judgement day", etc). Guliolopez (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done, lad! That is some fantastic work. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Éire go Brách! (Ireland forever!) is, however, the correct version. Éire = nominative case; Éirinn = Dative case. Erin is an anglicised form of the dative case rather than of the nominative case. 87.42.107.48 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

San Patricios' excuse was too much whiskey in a hot climate[edit]

Guliolopez, you are right to ask for a ref. but this was the actual reason given by most of them after their recapture by the Yanquis. A convenient excuse, probably, and definitely disliked by those who prefer the angle of natural-sympathy-with-the-equally-oppressed-Mexicans, but there it is. I have a very soft spot for the San Ps, learning much when I was in Mexico in the 1970s.Red Hurley (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I did read an American source at one point that read something like: "offering free whiskey, promising the favours of senioritas and offering 320 acres of land, Riley enticed more than 200 Irishmen and a few German immigrants to desert and join the army of their fellow Catholics." This reference is quite significantly different from the note you added however. Where whiskey is an additional enticement, rather than the chloroform agent suggested in the other wording. "Kryptonite of the Irish" even. Frankly it sounds a little like a propagandist excuse/reason (on either side) to "blame the whiskey". Playing upon stereotypes to either avoid the gallows ("sure I'm only a cheeky Paddy who got drunk and captured") or to push a propagandist view that the men had no legitimate reason for defecting ("the Paddies didn't defect because of political/social conscience - they just got drunk and captured"). Anyway, regardless of whether it was actually given as a valid reason, if the reason was given at all a validating source would be required. And it would need to be worded in such a way to make it clear that - even if it was given as an excuse (or claimed to have been given as an excuse) - there is nothing necessarily linking it with reality in terms of actual cause/effect. Guliolopez (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Name[edit]

This is commonly, if not universally, known as the San Patricio Batallion in Ireland. 86.44.57.55 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Sources[edit]

I notice that a previous addition of mine, which involved very complex translation of the official solemnity's text taken from Mexico's official gazette has been removed. I don't mind, but I would like to know why, specially since I see several of the comments above ask for further Mexican sources.

Daylightdemon (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


There are 71 names on the plaque in the picture. The article makes reference to 52 executed soldiers. Some of the names on the plaque cross reference to military records stating unequivocally that the individual was executed in Mexico. So I am disinclined to doubt the accuracy of the plaque. But it seems whatever, understandably limited, official historical sources we have are either understating the number of executed men, OR that perhaps this plaque makes mention of men who were executed and then some other number of men condemned and later pardoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.135.90 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)