Talk:Battle of Gonzales/Archive 1

SVG Flag

The flag displayed next to the article is an SVG illustration, not a photo. Compared with the photo further down the page, the illustration's font and cannon graphic seem to be incorrect. Is there an authentic photo of the original flag? Or are these all merely guesses based on a historical account? Loqui (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Casualities?

In the box, it says one Texan was wounded, but in the article it is not mentioned. Cloudbreath9 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannon Composition Confusion

There seems to be some confusion in the narrative about the composition of the cannon. Is the narrative trying to say that the construction and composition of the cannon is uncertain? Or, is the narrative trying to say that memory and speculation about the cannon has been cloudy over time?

In the Battle section, it is said that the cannon:

"...was probably a Spanish-made, bronze artillery piece of six-pound caliber, although a history written in 1900 identifies it as made of iron."

However, in the Aftermath section, it is said that the cannon is now in a museum and has passed scientific authentication tests. So, presumably the composition of the camera is certain. Perhaps also, the construction of the cannon (Spanish-made?) is certain. How do we resolve these discrepencies?

Thanks,

Carl Gusler (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good summary of the pros and cons regarding the authenticity of the cannon presently housed in the Gonzales Memorial Museum: Wallace L. McKeehan. "Fate of the Gonzales Cannon" (html).. For additional information: Norman Conquest. "Gonzales' Come and Take It Cannon" (html).. Vereverde (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a resource that discusses the scientific and historical investigation of the cannon that is presently housed in the Gonzales Memorial Museum: Jane Bradfield, Douglas Kubicek. Rx Take One Cannon: The Gonzales Come & Take It Cannon of October, 1835. Patrick J. Wagner Research & Publishing Co., Shiner TX 1981. Vereverde (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! this is bad

It's very difficult to understand the background / context in which this engagement arose either from the summary or introduction at the beginning or from the main text of the article. The article seems to assume a considerable level of existing knowledge and that slightly defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia I would have thought. Personally I know nothing about the conflict between Texas and Mexico but that means that this article is more or less incomprehensible.

The underlying problem is that the subject matter of the article is so boring. I haven't checked but I suspect that the number of contributors is few.

One solution would be for wikipedia editors to concentrate on articles about popular tv shows such as Family Guy, South Park and such like, oh yes and Star Wars. No doubt this is where wikipedia's real contribution to human knowledge lies.

I have the impression that wikipedia is running out of Featured Articles (I think someone has actually said as much) - hence having 2 articles in the last year about that tedious US technical college (one was its stupid car and there was a more recent one I think about its football team or something ... Jesus*). Today's so-called Featured Article is certainly further evidence that the whole project is going hastily down the U-bend wrapped up in a single sheet of double ply bog roll.

Discuss 90.216.34.86 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have just had a look: it's Georgia Institute of Technology; can't find the second FA

I don't think the background section is that hard to understand. Besides, if the Texan-Mexican conflict is that incomprehensible, you can always read Mexican Texas (as the article suggests) or Texan Revolution. This is just about one battle in the war, which usually assumes a level of pre-existing knowledge about the war.

As for whether something is boring or interesting... that is an extremely subjective topic and probably shouldn't be discussed here. Brutannica (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

JUst read the article, and couldn't agree less with the anonymous ip. Easy to understand, and the nice blue links above the sections even allow you to explore the other subjects if you can't be arsed to think. Skinny87 (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)