Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention of 1832/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:10, 28 November 2009 [1].

Convention of 1832

[edit]
Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is the latest in my series of articles on how Texans gained independence in spite of themselves. Occasionally, just occasionally mind you, early Texans actually tried to resolve problems with words and not bullets. They weren't very good at the political posturing, and never quite managed to figure out that the law didn't even allow them to have a political gathering like this. This is a fairly short, but very comprehensive article. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: Very good, and should be easy to win my support. A few things:

  • I've tightened the prose slightly; please take specific note of my edit summary.
  • "...seek reforms from Mexico." Would it be appropriate to change "Mexico" to something like "the Mexican government"?
  • The article's currently inconsistent in its use of the Oxford comma.
  • "...emboldened other Texas settlers to ostensibly fight for federalism." I'm not clear on what was "ostensible" about this fight.
  • "Many known agitators, such as James Bowie and William B. Travis, were not elected." From this I infer that they were defeated. If that's the case, why not replace "not elected" with "defeated"?
  • "The gathering marked the first time residents from each of the colonies had gathered to discuss common goals." I'd rather not see "gather" appear twice in the same sentence. The verb could be changed to "convened" or the noun changed to "convention", or the noun could be changed to "meeting" ("met" appears in the previous sentence, so I don't think that's a good solution).
  • "...that public domain lands be sold to raise money for bilingual schools." Property law wasn't my best course; does this mean something distinct from "public lands"?
  • "The committees were asked to keep in close contact because "united our strength and resources are more than adequate to our defense in any possible event. Disunited, we may become an easy prey, even to a handful of cowardly invaders."" Changing this to the active voice would have the added advantage of clarifying who was speaking.
  • "the political chief, or head, of the Department of Béxar" Is there some technical reason that one of "political chief" or "head" would not suffice? They seem essentially synonymous to me.
  • "Because the colonists had not followed this process, Músquiz annulled their resolutions." Is "annulled" the right verb here? It seems to me that since the colonists didn't have any formal authority, there wouldn't be much to annul. "Rejected"?
  • "Laws of April 6, 1830" is sometimes treated as a proper noun and sometimes not.
  • "...some Texas residents continued to campaign for independent states." Plural? Steve Smith (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Steve, I like the changes you made. I've addressed all of the issues you've raised except for the following:
  • emboldened ... to ostensibly fight.... The settlers used the Mexican civil war as an excuse to kick out soldiers who were enforcing policies the settlers didn't like (customs, etc). I don't want to go into too much detail about that in this article, so I've reworded the sentence to emboldened other Texas settlers to take arms against garrisons throughout eastern Texas
  • My source doesn't make it clear exactly where the "united...." quote comes from. I assume it is either from the official order or from one of the men on the committee (likely Stephen F. Austin), but without further detail I can't say one way or the other.
  • political chief and head are synonymous in this context, but I wasn't sure if everyone would understand what a political chief was. I don't have a strong feeling about this one way or the other.
  • "Anulled" is the word used by the sources - they are saying that the convention was illegal so the document essentially couldn't exist. "Rejected" implies that the document was valid and just needed approval.
  • "independent states" is technically accurate (because both Coahuila and Texas would become independent states rather than a merged one), but I changed to "statehood" so as not to confuse. Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it anachronistic to speak of economic stimulus (as you do when you write "Several of the resolutions were designed to stimulate the local economy.") in the context of 1832? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term was used long before the recent US push for "economic stimulus checks". For example, here is a 1933 article that uses the phrase "stimulate the economy" [2]. I am, however, open to other suggestions for phrasing. Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am well aware that the term was used before the 2000s; what I find difficult to believe is that it was used pre-Keynes, or pre-Great Depression. I would prefer "economic improvement" or "economic reform", as I believe the former is the phrase used in the early 19C for what we would call "economic stimulus", and the latter for sundry economizing reforms which do not attempt to change AD. They speak to the intellectual worldview of the period better than do the Keynesian undertones of "stimulate the local economy". If you can give me contemporary use of "economic stimulus", though, I would be very happy. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact list of reforms would probably be more helpful; are there minutes of the Convention, which should contain the arguments actually made? (It would be interesting, in the year of the Nullification Crisis, to see which arguments were made.)
  • It may be worth pointing out that, by the traditional laws of Spain, the existence of a Mexican Republic was itself illegal (I believe Spain still denied its legitimacy); it was the product of at least two revolutions, including the revolution of 1824. Did the convention appeal to a natural right of freedom of assembly? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your suggestions. I found digital images of an 1898 book that contains the minutes of the convention and the full text of the petitions. This is now linked in an External links section. All of the resolutions/petitions are mentioned in the article. I can't include the text of the resolutions because they were not short by any means - the independent statehood proposal was 5 or 6 pages long. Is there a better way that I can structure this to make it easier to figure out what they were asking for?
    • It appears that most of the debate took place in subcommittees, and there don't appear to be records of those proceedings. I've also included a bit more detail in the article from this book (it's quoted by lots of scholars, so can be considered reliable despite its age).
    • I've made it a bit more clear in the article that the delegates were operating under their interpretation of the Mexican constitution. Once they were told this interpretation was wrong (must go through appropriate channels instead), there was little public argument that I can find.
    • I don't think we really need to point out that Spain didn't recognize Mexico at the time (it's already in the article that the convention was against Spanish tradition as well). Mexico was recognized by many other countries, including the US. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. To phrase the point more precisely: Spanish tradition was not necessarily binding on Mexico, because the existence of Mexico as a sovereign state was contrary to Spanish tradition; it may be that somebody pointed this out at the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you mean now, thanks for the clarification. I can't find any documentation of a strong pushback to the annulment of the resolutions (although I'm sure there was plenty of grumbling, and the call for a new convention was a pretty big sign that people were ticked. unfortunately, the minutes of the 1833 convention don't appear to have survived.). The point I was trying to make was that Texas residents had never had the authority to host these types of political conventions, regardless of ruler. Any ideas on how I might better present that? Karanacs (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          I think the sentence you just wrote is a good start; had never had evades arguments of natural right and the question of what parts of Spanish law were still binding on a non-Spanish republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Convention of 1832 was a political gathering of Texas colonists where delegates met to seek reforms from the Mexican government.

This is the introductory sentence. I have a few probelms with it.

  1. "Texas" is not an adjective. However, I don't think the adjective "Texan" is called for either. I believe this word has been used as a shorthand way of saying "colonists of Texas". If that is what is meant, please write it like that.
  2. What is the location? Is this Texas in the United States? Was it the United States back then? Should the intro say "in the present day United States" or what? A location, other than a state needs to be given. I live in the Illawarra. Do you know where that is?
  3. "....a political gathering where delegates met...." No, we haven't been told where they met. This should read ..."a political gathering at which delegates met..."
Amandajm (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. I've rewritten the first paragraph of the lead (also addressing Fuchs' comment above about the number of sentences). The first part of that first paragraph now reads: The Convention of 1832 was the first political gathering of colonists in Mexican Texas. Delegates sought reforms from the Mexican government and hoped to quell the widespread belief that settlers in Texas wished to secede from Mexico. I hope this is enough context - I don't want to go into details about where Texas is now, because Mexican Texas didn't have the same boundaries as the current US state.Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now. Amandajm (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2c:
All your short cites should end with a fullstop (en_US: period) per the style you're using. "^ a b c Steen, Ralph W., "Convention of 1832", Handbook of Texas (Texas State Historical Association), retrieved 2009-02-03"
Bibliography too? Some end in a fullstop, others don't.
Is the subtitle to this work really Volume 1? "Gammel, Hans (1898), The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, Volume I. digital images courtesy of Denton, TX: University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History."
For advanced credit (optional only), Bibliography references to journal articles can contain the page range of the entire article, same with the de la Teja and the Vazquez chapters... "Morton, Ohland (July 1943), "Life of General Don Manuel de Mier y Teran", Southwestern Historical Quarterly (Texas State Historical Association) 47 (1), retrieved 2009-01-29"
Otherwise extremely happy that an editor understands works in other works, original publication years, books in series, so very very happy
1c: Large support on the basis on the span and recentness of works cited.
Thank you very much for catching those period issues. I've added a period to the Steen reference and removed the extra ending periods from the bilbiography. As for the Gammel work, "Volume I" is usually used as the subtitle. (See also recommended citation format for this here). At this time, I'm not going to track down the page ranges for the journal articles, but I will keep that in mind for future articles. Thanks again! Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will have limited to no computer access over the next 4 or 5 days. I will address any comments promptly on my return. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Convention_of_1832/archive1&oldid=1078787666"