Talk:Republic of Yucatán

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Mexico High‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Auntieruth55, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20 May 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Copyediting

Found this little gem in the copyediting pile... Don't think it belongs there. It's a coherent, easy to read article. Facts, aside, i say we kill it from the Copyedit task pile. Habeouscorpus (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave on the Copyedit task list. There are still many instances like this excerpt from the first subsection under History:

"Mariano Carrillo Albornoz, then governor, forcing Zavala and Manuel Garcia Sosa to be deputies of the Cortes and sent them to Madrid, while the other liberals were put in prison without Zavala realized. they realized it from everyone getting the yellow fever."

The article would definitely benefit from copyediting. Will try to come back and devote some time to same over the next week or so. Writeswift (talk 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Nice, Biased article. 71.81.46.119 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember there being a much larger article on the Republic of Yucatán. Was it deleted? Is it possible that someone could begin translation of the Spanish article? Jeffrbenn 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English grammar throughout this article is atrocious, reading as though someone copied a Spanish article on the Yucatán into Babelfish and pasted the resulting "article" onto Wikipedia. It needs to be copy-edited by someone who is familiar enough with the subject to ensure that the re-draft contains the same information and makes sense. bwryan2006 09:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to air grievances. Firestar464 (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Texas Case

In reading the section of this article marked Texas Case, much of the information contained there in is factually incorrect. I would like to see it marked as disputed until such time as either myself or others can provide corrected information with reference citations. In particular, the information concerning the reason that Texas finally broke with Mexico is false. This labels all people who were LEGITIMATE citizens of Mexico and engaged in an aggrived state with Santa Anna's breaking of the 1824 Constitution as Anglo Fillabusters seeking to expand the United States. This is false. There were many people of both Mexican and Anglo ancestry who had no desire to join the United States, they simply wanted their constitution honored in the spirit of the Grito de Delores. Juan Seguin was one of such person.Chilipequin (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Chilipequin[reply]

Unfortunately there appears to be a concerted effort to either rewrite history (even on Wikipedia) to reflect either the Texas point of view, or the Mexican point of view, omitting inconvenient facts that the Republic of Texas and Republic of Yucatán were not the only Mexican states to attempt to secede from Mexico (although they were the only ones to successfully break away, even if their independence only lasted less than 10 years), and downplaying the real causes related to the Mexican states seceding. I have also noticed that any reference to which states revolted against Santa Anna are promptly removed from Wikipedia, like someone doesn't want anyone to know that much of Mexico was in open rebellion against Santa Anna and demanded the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824, including Texas and Yucatán during their initial stages of their rebellion, which later turned into a bid for independence. The Wikipedia pages from the Republic of Yucatán, the Republic of Texas and other similar pages are constantly rewritten to omit inconvenient facts that are inconsistent with the official line or society's current understanding of history based on the official line they were taught in school. It doesn't matter if information is verifiable if verifiable inconvenient facts are constantly deleted. Omitting verifiable inconvenient facts taints history just as much as adding false facts. --71.22.104.128 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy editors comments

I did my best with this, but it needs the attention of an expert. It still has issues of bias, although I've removed some obviously biased information, plus removed quite a bit of material that outright did not belong in the article (it is not related to either the 1st or 2nd republic). I've also tried to make some sense of some of it, but there were parts that were completely baffling. See the ^{[clarification needed]} markers. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hpav7 has objected to my copyediting of the article. Please see discussion at my user page Republic of Yucatan. I reiterate here: simply because an article is a "good article" in another wikipedia does not mean it is translates into a good article in the English wikipedia. When I took this article for copy editing, it was incoherent and clearly a machine translation. Some sections still are incoherent. It is still biased, largely uncited, and lacks sufficient context. I hope that someone will take this article under their wing and improve it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]