Jump to content

Talk:Reform War

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

Untitled

[edit]

The second half of this article reduplicates information in the article on the French Intervention; the two articles should be better coordinated.

Also, I have noticed that some other pages reference "War of the Reform" rather than "Reform War"; those should be found and fixed. One of these days! - Potosino 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too and I hope I get around to it sometime soon. About the "War of Reform" references, just don't worry about those. There's a redirect on that page pointing to this article. (See Wikipedia:Redirect)-- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mention to the infamous McLane-Ocampo treaty and to the help that the American Navy and the American government gave to Juárez in Veracruz when they were about to be finally defeated by Miramón. There should be also an article about the US intervention as there is one about the French intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.159.108.37 (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found and fixed the broken reference -- it was in the Benito Juarez article -- to "Mexican War of the Reform" (no redirect from that!). --Potosino 03:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just created a redirect with that name, just in case it comes up again. Thanks for fixing the link! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the opening of the article gives as the war's dates 1857 - 1860, the right sidebar 1857 - 1861. Not sure which is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.37.195 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, what is the red/blue map based on? Ive been doing a research project as a hobby and some of the states seem randomly assigned? Oaxaca was liberal through and through, one of the largest supporters of the liberal cause? https://archive.org/details/reforminoaxaca180000berr/page/52/mode/2up?view=theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.192.227.249 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image's Wikimedia Commons page only lists David Piñera Ramírez's Visión histórica de la frontera norte de México (1994), but it solely substantiates Baja California's neutrality. I also find their designations dubious as there are discrepancies with Erin Greb's January and April 1858 illustrations (pp. 51, 55) in Will Fowler's The Grammar of Civil War: A Mexican Case Study, 1857–61 (2022). The latter has most of the country as disputed, including Oaxaca. However, neither depict Chihuahua as conservative. Given the nature of guerrilla warfare, division of the states can be difficult, if somewhat inappropriate. However, the image is eligible for removal per WP:UNSOURCED unless substantiated. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the country being contested is absolutely valid because, well, the war was a mess, evidenced by the fact it has 2 stages with both sides almost winning more than once.
Chihuahua swinging for the liberals could make sense, i heard a passing reference to fronterizos fighting for the liberals, coming from the arid areas near the apache.
I would say for the 3y war part of the conflict, it should be appropriate for a map to depict how the states initially swung, just like the ACW. The initial phase of the war wasnt mostly about the guerilla type of warfare. 50.192.227.249 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the entire north of mexico wouldve swung for the liberals. If you look at what battles are attributed to on wiki (not that i can find a source that mentions more battles than those but i understand the dangers of self referencing) they mostly occur in central mexico, where the states of mexico, controlled by the central conservative government, puebla, strongly conservative, and san luis pototsi, also strongly conservative, were located. Battles that didnt occur inside these states included only states adjacent to these, or a single battle on mexicos northern frontier against adventuring americans, which was swiftly put down because the locals either didnt like foreign invaders, or local support for the side the foreign adventurers supported wasnt present, and in this case i think that while both could be true, the latter makes more sense.
One state that i cant find reference of anything important happening in is Sinaloa, which apparently had a lot of old military families in it, so id expect them to swing for the conservatives (like most of the military), but they wouldve been surrounded on all sides by liberal states. In fact in Bancroft pg 782 one of a handful of mentions of sinaloa in the entire work references forces organized by the governor of sinaloa being blocked from the british from taking a certain town, the british being spurred into action by a fear of the liberals in the town. Suggesting that the sinaloans were liberals. 50.192.227.249 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bancroft pg 742 (circa 4 months into the war) The national existence of Mexico was now in danger; the bonds of government in the interior and the diplomatic relations with foreign powers being broken, the situation was only growing worse, and there was no apparent cure. Juarez had no idea of giving up the struggle. In Yucatan the reactionists possessed only Mericla; Tabasco was beset by the liberals; Chiapas was entirely under the control of the latter; and so were Oajaca, Guerrero, nearly the whole of Michoacan, Sonora, Aguascalientes, Zacatecas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Chihuahua, Tehuantepec, Colinia, and even Tlascala; and among the states where Zuloaga's authority was recognized, such as Vera Cruz, Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosi, Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Mexico,
Id be on board with the map being recolored to match these borders . . . ? 50.192.227.249 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Sinaloa did initially swing for the conservatives, but it was captured so quickly in the war by the liberals bancroft made little mention of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Pesqueira is mentioned as fighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Y%C3%A1%C3%B1ez who supported the plan of tacubaya 50.192.227.249 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reform War. 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 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reform_War&oldid=1258977774"