Talk:Cinco de Mayo

Cinco De Mayo- May 5th 1862

Contradictory

"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 fixed it. The second part was a vandal edit.

Contradictory

"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]"

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Holiday.

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 ([[User

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)

invasion

The text talks about Cinco de Mayo being the final invasion of the Americas 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 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Just to correct a historical fact. The 5 de Mayo was "not" the final invasion of the Americas 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)

Edit request from XLM, 5 May 2010

{{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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

{{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

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

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"?

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

{{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?

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"

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

worst-best ?

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

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

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: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Bility (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of facts between "Events after teh Battle" and "Significance"

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?

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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)