Talk:Battle of the Alamo

The Alamo battle was proven false

It is entirely based in myth and I'm surprised this isn't acknowledged at all here given it's widely accepted by modern historians to be false. 134.41.117.133 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have verifiable and reliable cites that adhere to Wikipedia standards, please feel free to do the editing yourself. That's how this works. THX1136 (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

One thing that is false is the theme of the article that the Texians were there illegally. They were there in the colonies that were operated by the empresarios that had the permission of the Mexican government to colonize these areas. The application of the term illegal immigrants to the Texians is a little cute and too on the nose to be considered scholarly. I would edit those references out of the article but I suspect the author is proud of his cuteness and would just put them back in there. 73.27.184.71 (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Spelling error

Texian is not how you spell Texan 188.129.78.186 (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

See section above. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Understanding the Term Texian: History and Usage - Texas State Historical Association — Maile (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Revival: Background

The background of the article is flawed as it places the story squarely in the narrative of slavery in the United States rather than a broader backdrop of political clashes in Mexico, and thus covertly avoids a neutral point of view, instead viewing through an “American” lens.

In 1836, four Mexican states - Texas, Cohuila, Zacatecas, and Tamaulipas - were in revolt against President Antonio López de Santa Anna. They opposed his centralist policies, which undermined local governance and authority. The unique presence of citizens of the United States and enslaved persons needs to be understood within a larger context: Santa Ana’s lengthy, punctuated periods of unpopular dictatorship in Mexico and the series of revolts that ensued.

To avoid this discussion enables the easy judgment of the Texicans rather than educating the reader on the era’s complexities; it replaces one myth (Disney and John Wayne) for another (the original sin of the United States). We can do better. 2601:8C3:8600:D00:DBC:C511:C68A:A6E4 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2026

Can the following sentence be moved to the bottom of the paragraph and reworded: "wanting to defy Mexican law and maintain the institution of chattel slavery in their portion of Coahuila y Tejas by seeking secession from Mexico, were garrisoned at the mission at the time"

This sentence was shoehorned into the middle of the sentence about troop numbers and reinforcements seemingly to make a point back in June and makes little sense placed here.

The reworded sentence could read "The Texians wanted secession from Mexico for their portion Coahuila y Tejas following new policies by the Mexican government including bans on slavery and immigration."

This wording actually follows the sourced sections in Background which shows that slavery wasn't the only motive as is currently written and is also NPOV. ~2026-22005-8 (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Removed the sentence from the lead completely. The motivations of the Texians are sufficiently covered in the Background section and not necessary to include in the lead. Day Creature (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Day Creature: thank you for fulfilling this request but someone has reverted you with the not entirely correct claim that "texans started their independence cause the mexican law banned slavery". I think this should be reverted mainly because this sentence as you noted is non-neutral and very much misplaced. As a compromise we could add the reworded sentence I suggested in the initial request at the end of the paragraph. ~2026-41370-4 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. @Damian Iturbide:, please discuss the disputed edit here on the talk page. Day Creature (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I wanna know what it looks like.

because I have a project. ~2026-12216-29 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! The 1856 picture is what it looks like at the top of the article. Hope this helps! (Zakk😎) 00:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)