Talk:Battle of Puebla

message: ----
There are  a lot of anonymous remarks being entered below. Please sign your comments! Magi Media 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

message: The article on Cinco de mayo mentions that the Battle of Puebla included a stampede of cattle by local peasants. Any truth to this claim? If so, why is it not mentioned here?
:Because it is a false statement. I have access to the Mexican military historic archive and I'll do my best effort to bring founded info to this page as soon as I can.
::This overstated stampede account was retained in the discussion section of the CdM article because it is a discussion. Details of the battle in the article were minimized to give more testimony to the day as a modern celebration. But there is no other historical account that talks of a stampede. The French were overrun by a cunning yet legitimate band of Mexican fighters (not peasants with machetes and pitchforks) who got lucky that day. The French also beat themselves at the hands of an overconfident, cocky General Lorencz. Napoleon III retaliated by sending in 29,000 new troops. I'm afraid that a little of the Hollywood romance tale has gotten into many of the accounts for this battle. Magi Media 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...who got lucky that day.". Hmmm, there's no historical account of that either. "Hollywood romance tale"? Care to elaborate? Never heard of one about May 5th. Oleksandr 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being either naive or out-of-country. The Mexican army had no business overwhelming the French. They got lucky. And the idea that the French were beat off by a bunch of peasants with farm tools and a loosed herd of cattle is something that you see in a Zorro movie. --Magi Media 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither, but it doesn't matter. Wikipedia needs facts, not user's dogma. Naive is: editing without having read first Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, or worse, disregarding it. Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamp out stampede 

message: General Don Porfirio Diaz Mori did not lead a cavalry charge in the battle of Puebla. This article mentions that the General did so, but it does not specify as to what battle of Puebla was it. There was one in the 5th of May (famous 5 de Mayo) in which the General was in charge of a brigade that repelled the French forces that attacked the land between the two fortresses of Loreto and Guadalupe. The General's Brigade stopped the French, pulled them back and then chased them despite being ordered by General Zaragoza to hold their ground. General Diaz was praised for bravery for his contributions in the Battle of Puebla (5th of May). This can all be found in the Biography written by General Bernardo Reyes.
There was another Battle of Puebla which was the siege of Puebla later on after it had been taken by the French, in this Battle General Díaz DID lead a fierce cavalry charge against artillery IIRC.
:Of the accounts I have read, I find that it was a General Felix Diaz who lead the May 5 cavalry attack. General Porfirio Diaz is listed as in charge of the San Luis Potosi Infantry Brigade Magi Media 04:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generally inaccurate 

message: The numbers of combatants and casualties in the template were obvious nonsense.  I have changed them to the numbers in the Spanish page, which are plausible, but I don't have particular knowledge of this battle so they may need checking.   seglea 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the accounts I read I have found a list of the numbers now posted. The French troop count was specific to each unit. The Mexican count had no specific record. The body counts were near accurate. Magi Media 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: I would like once and for all to put a tactical bent on the idea that the Battle of Puebla was fought by peasants wielding machetes. The only place you see such a thing is in a Zorro movie. And the idea that 6,000 French troops were rebuffed by a bunch of croppers is ridiculous.
If you look at the portrayal of the battle as expressed in all the historical accounts, the French never got near the town. That's the only place where you might see street fighting with machetes. But there was a Mexican garrison there, with supposed French allegiance, would turned on the French as well. They may have gotten the locals excited, but there was no real reason for them to join 4,500 regular forces doing real military stuff.
Lorencz attacked from the north on the hillside fortifications. He was rebuffed two times by gunfire, not cutlery. In the third attack he was outmaneuvered by the Mexicans. I'm not going to doubt that any of the regular Mexican military, as well as the French, had some sort of knife. THEY'RE CALLED SABERS. But the Mexican forces were equipped with muskets.
When the French were caught in the pincer movement, a well-known tactic, they retreated (we laughingly call it "advance in retrograde" in the military) back north and were flanked again by Mexican soldiers on the road. This overpowering would not have been done with knives. THEY GOT THEIR ASSES SHOT. 460 dead French soldiers were not killed by machetes,,,they were seriously rained on.
I'll give you this: adding up all the tactical blunders that Lorencz made, he could have been overrun by a plattoon of weedwhackers.
--Magi Media (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: March of the Machetes

message: This article is rather poorly written.  Sentence structure is sub-par, and even includes sentence fragments such as "Add to that the fact that negotiations for the withdrawal were breaking down," which appears at the end of the second paragraph under "The battle".  I have no idea how this entry is able to rate a "B" on the quality scale, particularly considering the possible historical inaccuracies pointed out in previous discussion.  In my opinion, the entire article needs to be significantly rewritten and expanded in greater detail, with a more neutral tone and full references. 208.69.225.39 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite many good faith edits, in many ways seems to have gotten worse over the past year or so. It has a large portion of unreferenced text and some POV language.  I'd suggest a major rewrite; some portions of historic versions might be of useful. -- Infrogmation 01:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Problems

message: I presume it is work in progress. Keep it up. Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right! It looked like Pres. Bush wrote that.--Magi Media 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May 7th rewrite

message: User:Magi_Media, your time and effort put into this article is appreciated. However I lament you left it the way it is. When you go through the trouble of contributing verifiable facts to an article (and perhaps acquires utmost importance at a rewrite), please remember to always cite your sources. Leaving just one link at the foot will not do. Wikipedia:Citing sources emphasizes on the purpose of this, among others, discouraging original research. Even though it is a major change, according to Revert, assuming your good faith, a revert is not in order. Wikipedia:Citing sources has plenty of advice on how to cite, and many styles to do it, therefore by the way, if you do proceed to cite yours, I advise you focus on citing styles so you choose the most convenient for you and other editors over time. Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Alas you could as well revise your choice of phrasing. Content like: <sic>The following account is a corroboration of several historical accounts that hold this account to be most factual:</sic> is redundant, yet of minor impact so it doesn't need a tag (Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Style_of_writing). Oleksandr 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right! It looked like Pres. Bush wrote that.--Magi Media 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: The decisiveness of the battle has been first added by User:Matt Yeager with this comment "are you kidding? probably the biggest victory in Mexican history", lol . This point of view was not sourced of course. I reverted this POV, as the Mexican victory at Puebla has led to nothing (the French invasion continued and Puebla captured). Hence this battle has not been factually decisive. Definition of the word decisive : "Settling an issue; producing a definite result". This was NOT the case at Puebla. Your own source (Washington Post ) confirms my point and contraries yours : "It wasn't a Major Strategic Victory in the Struggle Against the French". My source  says EXACTLY the same thing : "The Battle of Puebla was not very important to Mexico from a military standpoint." / "Although the Battle of Puebla amounted to little from a military sense – it merely postponed the inevitable victory of the French army,". It hardly can be described as decisive, it merely was a boost up for the republican morale. UltimaRatio (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing significance with result, and --maybe unknowingly-- engaging in Original Research. And, BTW, rather than reverting someone's edits, as you did with Matt Yeager's as you stated above, try asking for a citation first, and if not provided within a reasonable time then revert: it's just common sense and common courtesy.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only one here confusing result and significance. As stated above, the battle of Puebla had no decisive result as the invasion continued and Puebla was captured later. My point of view is sourced : "It wasn't a Major Strategic Victory in the Struggle Against the French", "The Battle of Puebla was not very important to Mexico from a military standpoint.", or "Although the Battle of Puebla amounted to little from a military sense – it merely postponed the inevitable victory of the French army,". Yours is not. You're confusing with the significance of the battle : sure, it became a symbolic Mexican victory (David against Goliath like) and it became a national myth in Mexico, but that's not the point. The point is that the result of the battle was very limited. UltimaRatio (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The battle was decisive: If you are going to use the argument (which, to start with, is your argument and thus OR) that the battle was not a decisive Mexico victory based on the fact that Mexico was captured later (by the French within the context of the French intervention in Mexico) then you would have to accomodate the fact the battle was decisive based on the fact that Mexico was "re-captured" back from the French later yet by the Mexicans still within the scope of the French intervention in Mexico.  Please do not remove the "decisive" and related comments from the article unless you can come up with sources that state your point. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My point of view is not "OR", it is sourced by four different quotes. While you have no supporting evidence. Have you even read the link you gave ??? It states that this battle was not decisive : "It wasn't a Major Strategic Victory in the Struggle Against the French". Unless you come with some more consistent arguments, I'll have to restore the previous version of the article. UltimaRatio (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Was the battle of Puebla decisive ?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle of Puebla. 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 https://web.archive.org/20090426114625/http://www.alpineavalanche.com:80/articles/2008/05/01/news/news03.txt to http://www.alpineavalanche.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/news03.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Puebla. 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/20120324134837/http://www.colegiorex.mx/eventos/dia-de-la-batalla-de-puebla to http://www.colegiorex.mx/eventos/dia-de-la-batalla-de-puebla
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512133833/http://www.sanmiguelguide.com/batalla-de-puebla.htm to http://www.sanmiguelguide.com/batalla-de-puebla.htm
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) 05:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jdhamptontlu (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST273