Talk:William B. Travis
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William B. Travis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Although modern custom and scholarship refer to the man as William B. Travis, the article should mention at some point that he himself appears never to have called himself that. He occasionally signs his full name (as in his most famous letter from the Alamo) or the initials W.B., but most often called himself W. Barret Travis.
For examples, see letters here, here, here, and here. Following the Anahuac Disturbances, Ugartichea didn't send out an order to arrest William Travis, but one for Barret Travis (well, ok, "Traves Barret," but it's plain what he meant.)
I'd include it myself but these are all transcriptions of letters. Can anyone find a scholarly mention of his naming practice or a site with a scan of an original letter other than the "Victory or Death" one? -126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
the article says that one of Travis' sons won a seat in the Republic of Texas Congress in 1851. this is not possible as Texas joined the USA in 1845. he might have gotten a seat in the state congress or to the US congress from texas. but this needs to be fixed. Caesarscott 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch - I've changed the information (the date was wrong as well) and added a cite. Thanks! Kuru talk 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong Date Corrected
The article had August 9 for the birth date of Travis. I recently made a trip to the alamo (and posted a couple of pictures). The Alamo has a plaque for Travis that gives a birth date of August 1st. I already changed this once and somebody changed it back. If there is documented proof of August 9th, please post a picture of the documentation or reference it, before changing it back. Thanks, Lancemurphy 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: The matter of Travis' exact birthday has been going on for as long as he's been famous. Historians generally do argue over two dates: 9 Aug. or 1 Aug. The official genealogist of the Travis family, General Robert J. Travis, gives the date of 1 August. A brother of Travis, James C. Travis, also agreed with the 1st as the correct date. But, the Mark Travis family bible states William's birthday as 9 August. It does seem the 1 August date carries more weight amongst scholars.Tlincoln 19:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)TLincoln
Let me suggest you contact the Grand Lodge of Alabama, F. & A. M., P.O. Box 268, Newton, AL 36352. They might share their version of his birth date, when he received his degrees, etc. They might also put you in touch with Alabama Lodge No. 3 in Monroeville. WickedBob 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Col. Neill went to look after his family?
The page on the battle of the Alamo states (with a reference) that Col. Neill left the Alamo to recruit reinforcements and collect extra supplies for the garrison. On the page about Col. Neill himself it states that both reasons for his departure are correct but does not cite a reference. I understand why this might not seem important, but I was just doing some casual reading on the Alamo and this stood out as a bit untidy. Does anyone know of some references that could be added to provide clarificaiton on Col. Neill's motivation for leaving the Alamo? Or would it be better to raise this issue on the Alamo or Col. Neill talk pages? MalachiK (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The sentence stating that Rosanna Cato Travis married David Portis in 1843 is incorrect. It was actually Travis' fiancee in Texas, Rebecca Cummings, that married Mr. Portis in Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Line in the Sand Story
The fact that Travis shot himself rather than be taken prisoner was accepted by no less an authority than Sam Houston, leader of the Texas rebellion. So why do you feel you need to alter history and perpetuate the 'John Wayne' Alamo myth ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor-Scrumpy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- (note: moved this from my talk page). You are welcome to introduce reliable sources that support your addition. Your additions to the lead of the article contradict the rest of the page, so it would be wise to have a unified presentation of "death theories". First step; make a proposal with references, please. Thanks! Kuru (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- From my reading, I don't believe that the theory that Travis shot himself is accepted by any historians. We'd need to see some statements from scholars to justify that inclusion. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have cut approximately 10.5 kb of pure unadulterated fantasy from this article. What's left isn't very good or comprehensive, but it's better than promulgating some editor's wet dream about WBT. I'm sure I'll return to work on the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
November 2013 clean up
In response to the big source tag at the head of the article, which I have now removed, I cleaned up this article to something basic and verifiable. A lot needs to be done by scholars of the Alamo battle. What I did was source what I could find, try to make sense of what was there, and remove blocks of text that were not sourced. At the very least, there is now inline sourcing for everything. However, in good-faith attempts to tell the story of Colonel Travis, much of what was there were large unsourced chunks of text about Texas history that did not directly involve Travis, or at least it was not tied in as written. And I put a new section on Family down at the bottom and moved text down there. Without a doubt, this article needs to be improved. But I believe I have at least gotten it beyond the point of being tagged for sourcing. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)