Jump to content

Talk:Battle of San Pasqual

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Untitled

[edit]

The modern spelling is San Pasqual-should it be changed? Max 097 08:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is appropriate. Most references to it appear to use the modern spelling, such as the San Pasqual Battlefield Site Location Project. -Will Beback 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image entitled "Battle of San Pasqual painting" is incorrect. Its actual title is "Lancers at La Mesa" from a different battle that followed San Pasqual. The correct image is available at the Command Museum Marine Corp Recruit Depot, San Diego' They are very helpful there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1d00:827:9965:d236:6fcd:6ef1 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, however then it is improperly utilized by the California State Military Museum website as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First line of article

[edit]

The first line of the article had an obvious error... it had said "San Pascual (also spelled San Pascual)." Either of the following could have been intended,

  • San Pasqual (also spelled San Pascual)
  • San Pascual (also spelled San Pasqual)

but I corrected it to the former because it coincides better with the title of the article. Jim 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rebels?

[edit]

How do you make out that the Mexican/Californio forces were the "rebels"? Surely they should be called the Loyalists, no?

--miguelj in san Diego

Ditto on Loyalists

[edit]

I agree senior Miguel..most accounts about this time period are full of POV relative to American interests..every article you read has this POV, i.e., Kerney marching across the desert, and his weary men...what a load of BS, they want you to feel sorry for him and his men, and an excuse as to why they lost to the Mexicans..who Kit Carson said were "lazy, and had no will to fight"..the Californio had only Lances and they fought regular US army with muskets, and were outnumbered, and still defeated them, killing 22 in the process.....it's up to folks like us to try to articulate the history with facts and reason void of emotion...in fact the Californio's were true patriots and should be recognized as loyalist "heros" for the defense of "their" sovereign land that they displayed in the battles for Southern California....DonDeigo 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- That may be, but this article is loaded with pro-Mexican/Californio bias, which needs to be toned down.

P1340 15 March '08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/68.126.5.53 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle?

[edit]

How do you corolate lances against muskets? and the figure of 150 Californio's is incorrect, they were in the 40 man range...get real... at any rate, how anyone could call the actions of the Americans in this agression anything but pathedic, is not in reality...if the truth of this encounter would have been made aware to the US congress in a timly manner,i.e., Lincoln, etc, this California agression would have been called off immediatly....guns aaginst lances, Americans and their decendants should be ashamed of themselves....DonDeigo 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and stay neutral about this matter, even if the source materials are often biased. -Will Beback · † · 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apoligize for my POV...it's difficult when your interpretation of historical documentation, in many cases for California, is filled with POV...it's understandable, because of the cultural differences, and the sourse and date of the documentation...I want to insure we interpret with truth and neutrality. DonDeigo 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The badly beaten and terrified American forces". Come on! (P1340) 16 March 08

Probably describes them well, but at any event I think the article is presented in a more or leas neutral way at this point. Fred Talk 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

Nothing about Carson's Midnight Crawl? After the defeat by the Californios Kearny sent Carson on a mission to get word to Stockton to send reiforcements. The problem was the Californios held the territory between San Pasqual and San Diego where Stockton was anchored in San Diego Bay. Carson and a naval lieutenant named Edward Beale along with an indian guide slipped past the Californios under cover of darkness on Dec. 8th, 1846, but in the process, Carson and Beale lost their boots (They had removed their boots so they would make less noise. The indian guide was wearing moccasins.) The three split up and took different routes to San Diego, Carson taking the longest, and all three eventually made their way to the bay and Stockton. Carson and Beale made the entire trek barefoot. Their feet were swollen and had numerous cuts. Neither could walk for several days after. Their mission a success, Stockton learned of the situation at San Pasqual and sent 120 sailors and 80 Marines to Kearny's rescue. Historian Benard DeVoto called Carson's "Midnight Crawl" to San Diego "high among the exploits of the master moutain man." Source: Blood and Thunder by Hampton Sides. As a native San Diegan, the names Kearny, Carson, and Gillespie are familiar names but I never knew who these men where and what they mean to San Diego's history.

==

"...it was one of many battles and skirmishes where the Californios bested American forces in Southern California."

Such as?

-P1340 March 16 '08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/68.126.5.53 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as The Battle of Dominguez Ranch, The Siege of Los Angeles, The Battle of Los Angeles, and numerous other small engagements and skirmishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/76.95.138.22 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 07:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add the "Battle" of Chino, and in which Americans--local civilians--defended an adobe against a Mexican force from Los Angeles until the attackers, after losing one single man, set fire to the roof of the structure, which had been coated with pitch (from La Brea) to waterproof it. The 'American' forces surrendered forthwith. Terry J. Carter (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info

[edit]

A user has provided some possible sources and some perspective on this and other battles. How it can be used is left to other editors. I have had a bit of an edit war with this gentleman, primarily because he had changed the tone of the article to reflect an American victory. This was in contradiction to the history of the article and to other articles that cover this battle. The article had started as showing "favor" to the Mexicans and for most of its history has also conveyed this stance. Another article that agrees with this idea is the list of Battles of the Mexican–American War.

I did convert an existing reference to the inline type. I put it at the point in the article that declares favor to the Mexicans. If there are other sources, like the items that Braverifles provided, that are ambiguous or that favor the Americans, then that info should be integrated into the article with the references clearly cited. E_dog95' Hi ' 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

defeat?

[edit]

I think it's way too strong to say the Army of the West defeated the Californios in the header. We know that Wikipedia is not perfect, but despite criticism, many sites copy the article content as gospel truth. Examining the facts that the Army was exhausted, poorly uniformed for the hot climate, they were misinformed as to the threat of attack, were meeting fresh Californio citizens who were armed and valorous, had heavy losses while the Californio losses were light, were surrounded and trapped by the Californios on rocky Mule Hill, had to send someone to sneak out at night to get help, and had to have the Navy come rescue them... I think it is strong to say they were victorious, despite some war college's finding 75 years later. - Parsa (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Often, in other articles where there is a dispute regarding the results, the result is "see results" and is linked to a section regarding its aftermath, which has balanced referenced statements from all sides of the conflict. In the past it had read Californio victory, however, it was replaced with a cited statement some time ago. There is a discussion regarding this on the wikipedia military history project's talk page.
Usually, with the statement regarding results is often placed with consensus of active editors. That being said, it my opinion (which would, if I were to place it in the article, be WP:OR) that it was a tactical Californio victory, but a strategic American victory. I say this because it was the Army of the West which was driven from the field of battle via a tactical withdrawal of the Californias, drawing them away from their heavier support elements, thus spreading out their attack elements and leaving them susceptible to the Californios. However, in the end the Army of the West still achieved their goals of reaching San Diego, and forcing the Californios out of the San Diego area.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents would just to call the infobox result something along the lines of "Californios withdraw" and let the actual article do the talking, and the readers can decide for themselves who "won." 208.72.200.10 (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of San Pasqual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of San Pasqual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded quotes

[edit]

BRD falls on @Jeff in CA:. Not myself.

  • On 17 June, Jeff in CA boldly added quotes, cherry picking individual sentences from different parts of the reliable source to create a narrative.
  • On 28 June, I reduced the quote per to comply with MOS:QUOTE and attributed the quote.
  • On 29 June, Jeff in CA re-expanded the quote ignoring the previous reduction.
  • Late on 29 July, I clearly stated BRD removing the unconnected lines from the reliable source, which gives undue weight on the opinion of Regan, and does not take into account the addition of the quote from Coy added above.
  • On 1 July, Jeff in CA ignores BRD even though it applies to them.
  • On 3 July, I corrected Jeff in CA.

Jeff in CA added content, it was pruned, Jeff in CA attempted to re-expand, it was pruned, Jeff in CA again attempted to re-expand, again it was pruned. Therefore, let us discuss this before good faith quote expansion happens again without consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-existing narrative claimed that Kearny's actions were valiant. However, the citation for this statement was Regan's work, which does not call his actions valiant (it calls them disastrous). In fact, Regan makes a detailed point-by-point (nearly 20!) smackdown of Kearny's performance.
Therefore, I replaced the misleading statement with a quote from Regan's work, consisting of six sentences on Kearny's performance in the battle. You cut four sentences out of the quote, gutting it of Regan's conclusion of Kearny's performance.
In a spirit of cooperation I restored just one of those sentences, in the interest of not losing a significant part of the meaning. This sentence was about how underestimating the opposition led a blind rush to battle. The source of this reduced quote is Regan's first two sentences in a paragraph and one sentence in the next paragraph.
The quote is a conclusion that is explicitly stated by the source. One can hardly call two consecutive paragraphs "different parts of one source." I don't see how anyone can assert this is synthesis or creating a narrative.
You then deleted that one sentence on underestimating the opposition, claiming it was "unconnected." You are fighting over this one sentence.
You seem bent on dismissing Regan's harshly critical assessment of Kearny's performance as a leader. I did not quote most of Regan's assessment so as not to give undue weight to Regan's work. Instead I selected a sentence to convey Regan's overall conclusion of Kearny's performance.
You deleted Regan's words and instead replaced them with sanitized words about the American side fighting bravely and having inferior weapons.
This part of the Wikipedia article on the aftermath of battle includes the topic of Kearny's performance in battle. You seem to think that "aftermath" should touch on merely a debate about whether he won or lost the battle. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While the source does include what was quoted, it does so, in various parts of the source, not all in one continuous place from the source. This is cherry picking to synthesis a narrative, as I stated above.
If it was the overall negative view of Regan of Kearny's actions of the battle (regardless of his later success) then the best single Regan quote to accomplish the goal perhaps would be, IMHO:

Kearney's march from Fort Leavenworth had been a triumph of exploration and endeavor, and the general had shown astuteness in dealing with his civil duties in establishing a government in New Mexico. Unfortunately, it was as a military commander that he failed both himself and his men in the wholly unnecessary battle at San Pasqual.

This article, and its aftermath section, need not be a a collection of different quotes from the various authors who have written and made their opinions known about the event which is the subject of this article. Nor should one author be given undue weight over the various other authors, by giving that author multiple fragments of quotes cherry picked from their writing. For balance, this article should include both criticism and praise of both side of the battle, one of which was lead by Kearny, not just an oversized group of quotes emphasizing one author's views of the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you do realize that you are fighting about one sentence: "Kearney had seriously underestimated his opponents, always a serious mistake in a commander, and knew little of their technique of fighting." You have reduced it essentially to, "The Americans had a bad battle, and to say it was good is ridiculous."
1. The source does indeed include what was quoted in one continuous piece from the source. That continuous piece consists of two consecutive paragraphs.The use of an ellipsis in a quote to exclude the details in the middle of the passage is by all means a perfectly acceptable construct.
2. The proposed quote consists of "(a) intro statement", "(b) objection statement", and "conclusion on cause of (a) and (b)". It uses an ellipsis to indicate exclusion of some of Regan's supporting details between (b) and "conclusion". Again, perfectly acceptable, logically connected and the author's explicit conclusion. How this could be considered synthesizing a narrative or cherry-picking is beyond me. Because it certainly can not.
3. The object being to convey Regan's overall negative view of Kearny's performance in battle, it seems futile to discuss his time at Fort Leavenworth and New Mexico, where there were no battles.
4. The article previously had two quotes, now has two quotes and will continue to have two quotes. I fail to see how having two quotes, one each from Coy and Regan, could in any way be considered a quotefarm.
5. The Regan quote now has two sentences. The proposed Regan quote has three. The reason for limiting it to three is to avoid undue weight. It most certainly does not consist of "multiple fragments" of cherry picked quotes.
6. I agree that for balance, this article should include both criticism and praise of both sides of the battle. You have deleted criticism (that has even been purposely reduced to a single sentence) about underestimation of the Calfornios. You have left in place Kearny's self-aggrandizement and whitewashing of his own failure. It is currently not balanced.
Is Kearny one of your ancestors? Is this about family honor?
Jeff in CA (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff in CA: to attempt to claim I have a WP:COI is uncalled for! Trout is deserved for that!
While the source has all the statements, it does not have it continuously, but as is said above, among two different paragraphs, not in a continuous string of sentences. Therefore the use of ellipsis is the above editor cherry picking from the source. If the above editor wants to summarize Regan to say that Regan has a negative view of Kearny's performance, with a single quote, that would be fine. However, that is not what done.
Presently Coy's quote gives praise to the Californios and softly handles the actions of Kearny, Regan's quote does not talk about the Californios but directly attacks the POV that Kearny's actions were to be looked upon positively, and Hollon's quote puts the battle into perspective given the outcome of the overall campaign. IMHO that is not unbalanced as the above editor claims.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my God. So if Regan had not indented one of his sentences, all would be well. If an ellipsis in a quote spans an indent, as it does perfectly acceptably in usage by millions of people every day, then you call that "cherry-picking". Incredible. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

175th Anniversary Staff Ride

[edit]

For those interested in improving this article, the Wikimedia foundation affiliate in San Diego County will be hosting a Staff Ride on Sunday 5 December 2021.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_San_Pasqual&oldid=1206180975"