Talk:Cinco de Mayo

message: "While Cinco de Mayo has limited significance nationwide in Mexico, the date is observed in the United States and other locations around the world as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.[8] While Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day,[9] it is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico.[10]"
These two sentences are completely contradictory. I fixed it. The second part was a vandal edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.37.26 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: they celebrate the victory of the battle, not the war. It's mainly celebrated in the US anyways. Read the article. 68.228.111.11 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory ("limited significance")

message: LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!! "The Mexican victory, however, was short-lived. A year later, with 30,000 troops, the French were able to defeat the Mexican army, capture Mexico City". Nice. On which Mai Day do we celebrate on the side of the French?? Vive La France!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.137.210 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: they celebrate the victory of the battle, not the war. It's mainly celebrated in the US anyways. Read the article. 68.228.111.11 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  So the FRENCH WON and the fools still celebrate?! LOL! 

message: It is not a Mexican Holiday. It is not an American Holiday and is not observed or celebrated nationwide in America. It may be used as an excuse to drink by individuals who only see commercials and do not know the history. Vive la France!
"Cinco de Mayo (Spanish for "fifth of May") is a celebrated in the United States and primarily limited to the state of Puebla in Mexico.[1][2] The holiday commemorates the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of Mexican General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín.[3][4]"
I can understand that there have been some strong disagreements over whether the day is celebrated more in the US than it is in Mexico.  Perhaps it is due to large populations of Mexican-American citizens and other residents in the US.  In any case, the leading sentence is woefully inadequate, confusing, and borders on contradictory.  When an opening statement of this nature causes controversey, then it is not suitable for Wikipedia.  We must start with something that can be stipulated or assumed, and then work in the not-so-obvious information...
"cinco De Mayo (Spanish for "fifth of May") is an observed celebration day that commemorates the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of Mexican General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín.  While not an "obligatory federal holiday" in Mexico, it is celebrated primarily in the state of Puebla in Mexico, and in the United States."
--T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebration Observed in the United States 

message: The text talks about Cinco de Mayo being the final invasion of the American Continent by a foreign power... however, it was not the last battle.  The invasion continued, resulting in the conquest of Mexico.  So... from an invasion standpoint, Cinco de Mayo is completely irrelevant.  Needs either rewritten or deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijecharles (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The incursion of the French Army of Napoleon III, had the goal to conquer what they called Latin America (this term is widely used today.) It was a very different plan from the other invasions mentioned here. You may add "with plans to conquer" if you wish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.174.181 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  invasion 

message: Please add:
"The CocoRosie song "Lemonade", from their 2010 album "Grey Oceans", refers to the date in it's opening line; "It was Cinco de Mayo..."
To popular culture references.
Thank you
XLM (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from XLM, 5 May 2010 

message: A quintessential band and orchestra piece in the U.S. that's popular with audiences and enjoyed by performers, played not only on Cinco de Mayo, is "Malagueña_(song)". Depending on the arrangement, it usually has a very rhythmically interesting and exciting bass line accompaniment. Some tuba players, such as I, have said that the beginning of Malagueña reminds them of the beginning of "Mars, the Bringer of War"  -- the first Movement from Gustav_Holst's seven movement orchestral suite, "The_Planets."
Jon L. Slate (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Jonslate, 5 May 2010 

message: repeats itself.  The second paragraph just repeats the first.  Is such nonsense protection worthy?--24.85.68.231 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The references need to be present.  If you have a clear suggestion for the two to merge while using the references, please suggest it. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lead 

message: Stating that Cinco de Mayo is significant for two reasons, and one being it was the last time the Americans had been attacked by a foreign army, downplays the attack in the Aleutian Islands (which were also occupied by Japanese forces for a time). I feel that while the cited article says that this was insignificant, it is still true. Therefore, I request we remove that as a reason Cinco de Mayo is significant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazanga (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR applies not to content to exclude, however. Since we are under no obligation to include any content, reliably sourced or not, WP:OR is not a valid counterargument against removal of content (within reason, of course; though unreasonable attempts to remove content based on WP:OR arguments would likely be in violation of other content policies, WP:FRINGE and the like). As it stands, I would hardly consider it OR to remove claims from articles that can easily be verified as factually incorrect. The only possible exception would be when factually incorrect claims have enough widespread notability that noninclusion would be an NPOV violation. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit to significance 

message: Under Observances: Elsewhere someone edited the article to say grade 12 highschool students will be drinking all day today.
24.161.2.187 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done  Done Warned the user. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 24.161.2.187, 5 May 2010 

message: One of this page's regular editors should remove or correct this sentence:  "In 1861, Benito Juárez stopped making interest payments to countries that Mexico owed large amounts of marijuana to."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.13.100 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabotage--reference to marijuana 

message: Quote from wiki article: "While Cinco de Mayo has limited significance nationwide in Mexico, the date is observed in the United States and other locations around the world as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.[8]  While Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day,[9]  it is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico.[10]"
The last sentence is not just misleading, it is wrong and not only does it contradict the sentence directly before it, it isn't even what the the source it cites (source [10]) says.  Source [10] is this article http://www.alpineavalanche.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/news03.txt.  In which it says, "A common misconception in the United States is that Cinco de Mayo is Mexico's Independence Day; Mexico's Independence Day is actually September 16 (dieciséis de septiembre), which is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico."
September 16th, Mexico's Independence Day is the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico, not Cinco de Mayo.  Now I don't know much about editing wiki pages, especially if they are semi protected like this one, otherwise I'd do it myself.  But this is pretty obviously wrong and somebody should fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.177.164 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate topic paragraph 

message: The number of French troops is incorrect. Most sources report only about 6000, rather than 8000 were present.  One such source would be: 
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/10.html
74.197.151.250 (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 74.197.151.250, 6 May 2010 

message: None of the items in the "Popular Culture References" section seem, IMO, to meet the criteria in WP:IPC. Is there any reason we should keep that section? I'm strongly inclined to nuke it, but I thought I'd ask for opinions... -- Narsil (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And, hearing no objections... -- Narsil (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any reason not to remove the "Popular Culture References" section? 

message: I would like to point out that the statement "While Cinco de Mayo sees limited significance and celebration nationwide in Mexico, the date is observed nationwide in the United States and other locations around the world as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride" lists a reference to [8]; going to the link provided labeled as "statement from a Mexican official" takes you to an article from 2007 that quotes no such offical, nor does it indicate a national movement in the United States as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.
Thank you.
Montoyad73 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride" 

message: I have unprotected the article. Please keep in mind that all additions to the article must cite verifiable reliable sources. Changes made to the article must be within reason and justified. Provide an explanation in the "edit summary". Most important of all, refrain from vandalizing the article, This is no place for childish behavior. Thank you all. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: What does 'worst-best' mean?
Also, there appears to be an unbalanced quote-mark at the end of the quoted sentence.
---Tex (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. However, you will need to explain better the unbalanced quote item. Mercy11 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  worst-best ? 

message: the quotes from http://egpnews.com/?p=9337 "Cinco de Mayo is not a Mexican holiday—it is an American Civil War holiday, created spontaneously by Mexicans and Latinos living in California who supported the fragile cause of defending freedom and democracy during the first years of that bloody war between the states."
Needs to be discussed and edited. This quote is opinion and not fact. Cdiasoh (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from articles 

message: Cinco de Mayo marks an outnumbered Mexican army’s victory over an invading French army on May 5, 1862, in Puebla, east of Mexico City.
Although Mexico’s triumph lifted morale during a time of political and economic upheaval, it was short-lived. Mexico later succumbed to French rule in a period known as the French Intervention that lasted until 1867.
Keeping the French from creating an empire in North America was a mutual interest that sparked cooperation between US President Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juárez, his counterpart in Mexico. Today, statues of the American president stand tall in Mexico, and statues of the Mexican president, one of the country’s most beloved leaders, grace US soil.
24.23.66.191 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 24.23.66.191, 5 May 2011 

message: There is a conflict of facts in the following paragrahs - the article under "Significance" states that "since the Battle of Puebla no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force." But one paragraph before that under "Events after the Battle" states that "The Mexican victory, however, was short-lived. Thirty thousand troops and a full year laterk, the French were able to depost the Mexican army, capture Mexico City, and establish Emperor Maximilan I as ruler of Mexico." 
This means that one country in the Americas "has been invaded by a European military force" after the Battle of Puebla, making the statement aforementioned inaccurate and thus, cannot be "significant". 
Events after the Battle
The Mexican victory, however, was short-lived. Thirty thousand troops and a full year later, the French were able to depose the Mexican army, capture Mexico City, and establish Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico.[14] However, the French victory was also short-lived, lasting only 3 years, from 1864 to 1867. With the U.S. Civil War over in 1865, the U.S. was able to provide more assistance to Mexico to expel the French, after which Maximilian I was executed by the Mexicans, along with his Mexican generals Miramón and Mejía, in the Cerro de las Campanas, Queretaro.[14][19]
Significance
The Battle of Puebla was important for at least two reasons. First, although considerably outnumbered, the Mexicans defeated a much better-equipped French army. "This battle was significant in that the 4,000 Mexican soldiers were greatly outnumbered by the well-equipped French army of 8,000 that had not been defeated for almost 50 years."[20][21] Second, it was significant because since the Battle of Puebla no country in the Americas has been invaded by a European military force.[22]
65.126.245.162 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of facts between "Events after teh Battle" and "Significance" 

message: In the penultimate paragraph of citation #9, it states, “Mr. Hayes-Bautista thinks…” this acknowledged Cinco de Mayo. This is not a conclusive or valid citation, regardless of whether or not he is a professor at UCLA. Citation #10, Youthworker.com, is a propaganda article again citing Hayes-Bautista: “according to David E. Hayes-Bautista.” Citing this same information twice does not validate it. Citation #11 is a college newspaper again citing same – citing same source three times does not validate source. Citation #12 has no information directly related to Cinco de Mayo – it is simply a link to EMGNews.com. Invalid source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.223.219 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They meet WP:RS which is what you have to look at. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation stating that Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of the American Revolution 

message: This edit has been reverted - not liking a citation (or 3 as in this case) not a reason for text removal. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional Record

message: Per WP:RS, the citation #9 to Cinco de Mayo: The Real Story., when clicked on, connects only to the main site http://egpnews.com/ and thus does not satisfy WP:RS. 
However, assuming that you are able to find the link your looking for, I still contend few persons beyond Mr. Hayes-Bautista and perhaps Mercy11 celebrates Cinco de  Mayo “to commemorate the cause of freedom and democracy during the first years of the American Civil War.” I agree that this “date is observed in the United States as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride.” But to add that it’s a celebration for freedom and democracy of the Civil War, in my opinion, belittles this otherwise significant day of celebration, since it appears a clear attempt to give it greater historical significance. 
To use your own logic, Mercy11, if Battle of Puebla is in fact the last “the last time any army from another continent invaded the Americas” which you prove by first dismissing, per historical record, the actual most recent invasion with the statement that the Japanese invasion and occupation of Alaska was “so insignificant as to be virtually negligible: the islands invaded had a total population of 12 Americans and some 45 natives,” which, for the sake of this argument I’ll accept (even with its questionable logic – after all, you describe Alaska as a “small, frozen piece of land” who military invasion “was nowhere comparable” to Mexico [read: no importance to me, Mercy11, in terms of promoting my political agenda]), then we can extend your logic to assume that if only yourself and Mr. Hayes-Bautista celebrates Cinco de Mayo in relation to the Civil War, then whether or not you have a citation that satisfies WP:RS would make little difference, because this opinion would be “so insignificant as to be virtually negligible” given that only a couple persons out of millions of Latinos, including myself, celebrate it as such.
You, Mercy11, have assigned yourself as Gatekeeper and Censor to Wikis Cinco de Mayo page – refers to your numerous comments above on this Discussions page. If one feels your logic is questionable, such as your insistence that Latinos celebrate this holiday as an extension of the American Civil War and that it’s the last time an outside power invaded the Americas, your control and constant disallows any dissenting opinion. 
For myself, I will not continue checking this page to see if you have continued to keep its historical record in accordance with your views and what I would term historical revisionism to satisfy your clear political agenda (see Mercy11 contributions). So in the end, you win. But if you do, in fact, see yourself as somebody trying to contribute to an objective historical record, then I suggest you step back for a moment and reevaluate your motives for so keenly monitoring pages such as this one. 
 Certainly, you can respond to this comment by reverting the page to its former self and sign off  “Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia IS NOT about what you or I agree or disagree with. It is ABOUT what is said by PUBLISHED AUTHORS (unless, of course you are a PA yourself - which I so far doubt).  However, I do commend your initiative, challenging some of what I have contributed to in this article. But please no "gatekeeper" arguments for I do not claim OWNERSHIP to this or any other Wikipedia article. I would suggest that if you have another author's POV/OPINION on the Cinco de Mayo celebration, by all means ADD it in. However, what you have done so far is REMOVING cited, reliable, published information merely because you disagree with the PA's published article, and -that- is against Wikipedia POLICY. If you still disagree after reading the wikilinks I have provided, please take it CONFLICT RESOLUTION. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Content dispute 

message: I removed  and to commemorate the cause of freedom and democracy during the first years of the American Civil War.Cinco de Mayo: The Real Story. Cinco de Mayo: The Real Story, Part 1: While viewed as a Mexican holiday, the date has more meaning in the US. David E. Hayes-Bautista. Retrieved April 14, 2011. Ref did not work and made little sense. Jim1138 (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv Cinco de Mayo and US civil war 

message: Reverted date and content changing vandalism by IP and warned. --RichardMills65 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: Is this analogy somehow supported by citation or just as an observance?  If the latter I question the ostensible truthfulness of that analogy.  No one consciously considers St. Patricks day a day to celebrate pride and heritage of being Irish in America.  Chinese New Year is simply put, Chinese New Year and once again has nothing to do with pride or a celebration of being Chinese.  Oktoberfest is quite clearly only about drinking (and though omitted, one can almost say that of St. Patricks as well).  The closest you can come to it being about pride or heritage is with a clearly limited scope, such as food, drink, and attire meant to look humorous. 
I write this not to try to elevate the status (though really it doesn't matter why, it only matters if it is true or not) of the holiday above others, but that it truly is an unprecedented celebration of a foreign heritage within a country not directly related to the origins of it's events.  While not technically their independance day, it's celebrated as such by many Mexican Americans, and seems more akin to celebrating the fourth of July in Canada, if we like analogies.
24.255.144.59 (talk)anon (no I have no idea what I'm doing heh)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with some of what you say and have removed the statement for various reasons. One is that the statement is speculative: the "perhaps" was a dead giveaway. Another is the article is fine without it: the comparison doesn't, imo. add any value to the article. Another yet is that the citation given doesn't support the comparison, thus leading to a potential WP:OR. The statement appears to have been just an editorial observation by a contributors. If that was the case, it should not be in the body of the article but, at best, in the footnotes.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  analogy to st patricks day, chinese new year, oktoberfest 

message: The article should be supported by scholarly sources.  There are volumes of books regarding Mexican history to fill a library.  However, not a single book is cited.  There are fine sources in English, e.g.Triumphs and Tragedies: a History of the Mexican People (WW Norton & Co, 1993), Ruiz, Ramón Eduardo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguilayserpiente (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  awaiting scholarly sources 

message: There's always a jerk out there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.76.36 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take out profanity under history.  

message: The mobile version Says "shut the f*** up" under history. 
207.6.160.123 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: {done}} Already removed. Try purging it. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 6 May 2012 

message: Please remove "As far away as the island of Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, revelers are encouraged to drink Mexican beer on May 5.Celebration in Malta. Accessed 2008-05-05." since the article quoted is mainly an article advertising the return of Corona distribution to Malta, but does not really prove that Cinco de Mayo is celebrated. In fact this event as to my knowledge was not repeated after 2008.
213.165.190.226 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 8 May 2012 

message: mr:सिंको दे मायो
PrathamMarathi 20:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --NeilN talk to me 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 27 May 2012 

message: I have marked the text reading "Due in large part to the withdrawal of French troops by Napoleon III in 1866 – 1867" as Failed Verification/Original Research because the WP:good faith edits have 2 shortcomings: (1) The effect of the edit is to make the paragrapgh mean that the U.S. was able to provide more assistance to Mexico to expel the French due in large part to the withdrawal of French troops by Napoleon III in 1866 – 1867. However, the citation given doesn't say, or imply to say, that anywhere in that page that I can see; (2) for that sort of entry to be made, the citation given must contain the clear Cause-Effect relationship that the editor is adjudicating with his edit. However, the citation given doesn't present that sort of C-E relationship. That is, the citation cannot just talk about the French withdrawing from Mexico and the US help to Mexico on the same page: that's not enough. It must actually link the two events in a C-E relationship. Jumping to a Cause Effect relationship when none has been stated by Meyer and Beezley, would be tantamount to WP:OR. 
As a side note, on the "in large part" part, (3) even if the citation given did say that the US started helping Mexico fight the French as a result of the French withdrawal (which, as I stated already, it doesn't), nowhere does it say that that particular event of the French withdrawal was, of two events (the other being the end of the US Civil War) the primary one. As such, the use of the phrase "in large part" just before introducing the French withdrawal as a reason, is not warranted.
I have, for the time being left the entry intact, pending response/feedback/discussion from the wp:good faith editor(s) involved, or other parties, but will remove it summarily if no reasonable response is received timely. 
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: good point, so I rewrote the section, Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what your goal is; it reads unnecessarily wordy. Fact is, the US helped the Mexicans after its civil war was over because it (the US) could not get involved in helping Mexico while their civil war was still ongoing. That's the only fact that is documented so far as it relates to the Mexicans deposing Maximilano. If anything, your citation from Meyer and Beezley can serve to show that Maximiliano retreated (not just "withdrew") from Mexico because the Mexicans had created conditions described as "savage ferocity" for the French troops in Mexico. If your goal is to beef up the paragrapgh a bit, the way it looks so far, imo, is not helping. Let's stick to the facts. You may want to discuss further, or even give it another try on the text, but the original version was a lot closer to what we can demonstrate so far as actually documented. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Events after the battle

message: I have reverted the good-faith edits by Wikigi regarding the size of the armies for 3 reasons. (1) The History Channel is a much better known and more reliable source than the newly introduced "Fondation Napoléon" source. (2) The 7,000 French army number from the Fondation Napoléon is actually incorrect in the Fondation Napoléon article itself: 3,500 + 4,500 = 8,000 (not 7,000), lending reason to wonder how many other details in the Fondation Napoléon article could also be wrong. (3) The 12,000 Mexican army number, while attributed in the Fondation Napoléon's article to "according to French sources", fails to indicate what sources those are (the sources section at the bottom of the Fondation Napoléon article do not provide the answer). As a result, the previous numbers (8,000 French vs. 4,000 Mexicans) continue to offer the most reliable (and most commonly, or near most commonly, reported) figures.  My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On October 26, I added an indisputable source coming from a French général, Gustave Léon Niox, who published his memoirs only 12 years after the events, in 1874, with a link for direct consultation of page 162, where he states "General Zaragoza had about 12,000 men under his command" (General Gustave Léon Niox book, Expédition du Mexique : 1861-1867, published in 1874 by Librairie militaire de J. Dumaine, p. 162 Read online). I don't see how this information could be discarded again  like you did here and here. We all know that reports on wars and armed conflicts are always conflicting depending to sides providing information, numbers are more than shady here as each source gives a different account for each parties. As for your point #2, Fondation Napoleon indicate that "3,500 had arrived 8 January, 1862, and Napoleon III decided (9 January) to send a further 4,500 reinforcements, which arrived at Vera Cruz 6 March, 1862", it doesn't mean that they were all part of the Puebla battle. Most if not all sources, including Mexican sources, give a number of 6,500 French troup (6,000 here : La Batalla del Cinco de Mayo de 1862 [ - Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos de la Revolución Mexicana). There is no  "absolute truth" here, and as it is common practice in most history books, all numbers should be presented with their sources to the reader. - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-introduced the mention of 12,000 Mexican troupe today. Of course, I didn't swap numbers, but merely mentioned the existence of a different account (a simple footnote in Battle of Puebla and a mention here in Cinco de Mayo) - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about ? The History Channel is.. a TV Channel, in what way is that a reliable source ? I have brought here a primary source under the form of a direct testimony published in 1874 by an officer who was actually there. The second source comes from Fondation Napoléon, this well known foundation is based in Paris and have digitized dozen of historical documents (actual documents) pertaining to that period and hold a large library on the First and Second Empires. To pretend it doesn't comply with the WP:RS is just plain ludicrous. Of course French and Mexican accounts vary, just like American and Afghan or Iraqi accounts do vary for the current conflicts, that's what History is about, reporting all accounts. If you revert this well documented point again, I will put the matter up for mediation. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that you even dispute the numbers provided by the National Institute of Historical Studies on the Mexican Revolution. Not sure what to make of that.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of the two armies

message: First paragraph makes it sound like it is an American holiday. It should be emphisized that it is a Mexican holiday also observed in other countries which have Mexican minorities. And also the real origin of the holiday should be emphasized (1862 victory). In my opinion, the first paragraph is confusing and misleading. FYI I am neither American nor Mexican. I have just come here to find out about Cinco de Mayo and as usual I had to refer to other reliable sources such as Britannica because this article (especially the first paragraph) is a mess as a result of national/regional agendas.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Please remove the sentence "Brothers give their sisters 5 american dollars in appreciation of the holiday". 
This sentence was inserted at 2 locations in the article, in 2 revisions by 72.220.72.42, occurring at 03:12, 30 April, 2014 and 03:15, 30 April 2014.
Clearly somewhere a sister / vandal is hoping for 5 dollars early next week.
:Done! Mercy11 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Edit, May 1, 2014 

message: The Monroe Doctrine was the reason no other country invaded Mexico. the U.S. making it an american holiday is out of order, the U.S. did not have any troops involved nor did the south, it may be that France wanted the south to win but they could not. no factories no fresh troops the north had all kinds of immigrants, especially from Irland. so the battle did not have any fuction to the U.S., it is a way to try to get favorable treatment to immigrate to the U.S., nothing other than that, americans being fat, dumb and stupid may give the country away but I won't.
2602:30A:2E23:1C70:7568:D9C0:E91B:FF8F (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That is just your point of view, not an edit request.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014 

message: Reinserted content removed by Edward321, please discuss the changes here. Edit summaries aren't enough for major edits like those. The removals are objectionable per WP:RS. Mercy11 (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed no sourced content.  I have reduced the prominence of a theory held by only one professor. This theory probably should be listed, but without independent sources supporting it, the theory does not belong in the lede and need to be clearly identified as being a theory.  There were no independent sources supporting the theory, they were additional news articles quoting the professor's theory. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sourced content

message: is it Spanish, a location, a proverb?--Heebi (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It means Fifth of May.The article says this at the very start. Edward321 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: what is the meaning of the expression ''"Cinco de Mayo"''

message: please change 'Battle of Puebla' to 'Franco-Mexican War', in the sentence the "Second, since the Battle of Puebla, no country in the Americas has subsequently been invaded by any other European military force.[29]" (in the section about significance). The reason for this is, as the article stated earlier, a year after the Battle of Puebla the French successfully invaded Mexico and established the reign of Maximilian for 3 years. While the Battle of Puebla was significant in offsetting French plans in Mexico, it can't be called the end of the invasions.
64.184.34.180 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07Talk 18:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015 

message: "The 6,000-strong[16] French army[17][note 2] attacked the much smaller and poorly equipped Mexican army of 2,000. Yet, on May 5, 1862, the Mexicans managed to decisively crush the French army, then considered "the premier army in the world".[21][22][23]"
Come on, there is no needed for so much lies.
The Mexican were 4,000 (not 2,000) and the French 6,000.
Therefore the "much smaller" can also turn into "sligtly smaller".
And the French army wasn't "decisively crushed" but rather temporarily halted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.63.234 (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican delusion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cinco de Mayo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140221233535/http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/Special+Events/6564171/story.html to http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/Special+Events/6564171/story.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120827202647/http://www.canada.com/entertainment/About/6557818/story.html to http://www.canada.com/entertainment/About/6557818/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The date is observed to commemorate the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín and the lesser known Captain Kit Sanderson.
69.193.7.73 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016 

message: Cinco de Mayo is a big event in the Philippines.112.198.77.43 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elsewhere  

message: Well I have never  herd of 5 de mayo so I want to learn more!Who particepated,how did they?
That's the questions I have.45.36.225.132 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  MORE! 

message: Is there any other name for the Cinco de Mayo holiday?  (such as Independence Day for Fourth of July, various proposed names for September 11th, etc)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any other name? 

message: "Second, since the Battle of Puebla, no country in the Americas has subsequently been invaded by any other European military force."
Wtf?
The battle didnt even stop the French invasion, the entire country fell soon after and had to wait until the US negociated French departure in 1866 to gain its sovereignty back...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1C:8172:5400:6C5F:95BB:4831:1ED8 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit in "Significance" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cinco de Mayo. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120827202647/http://www.canada.com/entertainment/About/6557818/story.html to http://www.canada.com/entertainment/About/6557818/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Cinco de Mayo festival is virtually unknown outside of California and the south western portion of the United States. This should be reflected in the article. 104.219.106.83 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  California focus of the article for United States section 

message: {{subst:trim|
 74.254.87.120 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  —  IVORK Discuss 13:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  HB F H F  FHNFHFH  

message: In the "French invasion" section, the number of mexicans is 4500 or 4802 not 2000.
According to the same references that are noted :
http://www.bicentenario.gob.mx/Img/5mayo/5deMayo.pdf
http://www.mexonline.com/cinco-de-mayo.htm Mithraw fr (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017 

message: Cinco de Mayo is sometimes mistaken to be Mexico's Independence Day—the most important national holiday in Mexico—which is celebrated on September 16, commemorating the Cry of Dolores that initiated the war of Mexican independence from Spain Raromero1 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Cinco de Mayo. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408054236/http://www.clnet.ucla.edu/cinco.html to http://clnet.ucla.edu/cinco.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513020920/http://llero.net/culture/cinco-de-mayo-the-backstory.html to http://llero.net/culture/cinco-de-mayo-the-backstory.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511155759/http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/07/arts_culture/monkeybrains/doc49fa6aad6bd12177671001.txt to http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/07/arts_culture/monkeybrains/doc49fa6aad6bd12177671001.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511155759/http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/07/arts_culture/monkeybrains/doc49fa6aad6bd12177671001.txt to http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/07/arts_culture/monkeybrains/doc49fa6aad6bd12177671001.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513164436/http://merida.usconsulate.gov/holidays.html to http://merida.usconsulate.gov/holidays.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413144732/http://www.sep.gob.mx/es/sep1/Calendario_2012__2013 to http://www.sep.gob.mx/es/sep1/Calendario_2012__2013
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150116092000/http://www.caymannetnews.com/news-7106--6-6--.html to http://www.caymannetnews.com/news-7106--6-6--.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222170941/http://www.japanbases.com/forums/aft/10628.aspx to http://www.japanbases.com/forums/aft/10628.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cinco de Mayo. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.montrealmirror.com/wp/2012/05/03/drag-superstar/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718141644/http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080509/social/social1.html to http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080509/social/social1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article contains both the following sentences:
"The French army of 6,000 [12][13][note 1] attacked the poorly equipped Mexican army of 4,000."
"This battle was significant in that the 4,000 Mexican soldiers were greatly outnumbered by the well-equipped French army of 8,000 that had not been defeated for almost 50 years."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blhatibm (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory French troop numbers 

message: In the section on the Reform War ("Events leading to the Battle of Puebla" under "Background"), "Liberal" and "Conservative" are capitalized. This is correct, because that's what the factions were actually called. However, since those words are occasionally capitalized when they aren't proper nouns, that is potentially unclear. I've turned them into links to the two relevant articles. Changing it to "supporters of the Liberal Party", or adding the Spanish names, as in "the Partido Conservador", would make it clearer, but I think the links make it clear enough without adding text. Roches (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform War: "Liberal" and "Conservative" 

message: “However this was not the end of the war and when the American civil war ended the Union started loaning money and guns to Mexican liberals, pushing France and Mexican Conservatives to the edge of defeat.“
Correction:
However this was not the end of the war and when the American civil war ended, the Union started loaning money and guns to Mexican liberals, pushing France and Mexican Conservatives to the edge of defeat. Ktomaska (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation 

message: “However this was not the end of the war and when the American civil war ended the Union started loaning money and guns to Mexican liberals, pushing France and Mexican Conservatives to the edge of defeat. “
Correction:
However, this was not the end of the war. When the American civil war ended, the Union started loaning money and guns to Mexican liberals. This pushed the French and Mexican Conservatives to the edge of defeat. Ktomaska (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatic 

message: “However this was not the end of the war and when the American civil war ended the Union started loaning money and guns to Mexican liberals, pushing France and Mexican Conservatives to the edge of defeat. At the opening of the French chambers in January 1866, Napoleon III announced that he would withdraw French troops from Mexico.”
Why specifically did the French subside? This is important information. It leaves a person guessing as to the intrinsic factors that caused this. Ktomaska (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why?