Talk:Battle of San Juan Hill

Military history: European / North America / Spanish / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	United States military history task force

Not Really

I was learning about it and everything is true. Thanx.173.75.255.216 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Twilight§[reply]

Article needs some editing

The article misleadingly indicates that 15,000 American troops were used in the attack, when only 6,500 were available, with the rest being down, in reserve, or part of Lawton's flank to the north. Secondly, the casualties for the Spanish are too low. Over two hundred Spanish troops were killed, with at least as many wounded. The American casualties may also be higher.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.181.102 (talk • contribs)

So please fix it, with sources --AW (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't believe you, but those numbers are going to have to be referenced from somewhere and included. If they are facts from what is in the Reference Section then by all means they should be included. If those new facts contradict the facts we have, and those contradicted facts are referenced aswell, then we need to include in the page that discrepancies occur in diffrent accounts of the event. Wiseman, you seem knowledgeable on the subject, maybe you should change it. Cheers, AgPyth. AgPyth (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is too boring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.184.250 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Aftermath' section is rather inaccurate. Roosevelt was not elected president in 1901, but was on the winning ticket as William McKinley's vice president. Also, this battle had very, very little to do, if anything at all, with the election of 1932. I'm cleaning this last paragraph up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.234.198 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...

This may the most grammatically hopeless sentence ever seen in an article linked from the top page. No reference is provided.

The myth that the regulars reached a depression in the hill and stopped to fire, but Roosevelt ordered the troops to charge but the regulars refused because no orders to do so came from the brigade commanders, Roosevelt led his volunteers past and charged up the hill is untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.118.157 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I am not sure if this article cites all its sources There are large sections without a source... ~AQ 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African-American troops

The caption on the image at the top of the article would seem to imply that the Rough Riders got into trouble during the battle and had to be rescued by the 24th and 25th Colored Infantry regiments. But neither this article nor the Rough Riders article actually says anything about such a rescue. Surely such a rescue is worthy of note, isn't it? Anyone have a good source describing the role of the "colored" troops at San Juan Hill? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commander of the Rough Riders

At the time of the attack on the San Juan Heights, Roosevelt was the commander of the unit. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#War_in_Cuba "Originally Roosevelt held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and served under Colonel Wood. In Roosevelt's own account, The Rough Riders, "after General Young was struck down with the fever, and Wood took charge of the brigade. This left me in command of the regiment ..." Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Again this is just more propaganda. The bottom line the Rough Riders did everything that you have been told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.162.1.32 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence regarding the hot-air balloon needs work

A company from the signal corps ascended in a hot air balloon to reconnoiter the hills. The balloon made for a good target for the Spaniards, and it was another path leading up the slope. Hawkins' brigade had already passed by the new found route and Kent ordered forward the brigade under Colonel Charles A. Wikoff. It was 12 p.m. by the time Wikoff began heading down the trail, and a half an hour later he emerged from the woods and was struck by a bullet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfsmf (talk • contribs) 08:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead parargraph

Please discuss changes in the lead here. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki USA

This reads like a US Army Battle report. It's clearly a NOPV article about the "always right" USA beating the bad guys... in the most infamous war the USA has ever fought and one of the two where the USA was clearly the bad guy. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This reads like a US Army Battle Report." You're surprised? The American military and its' Cuban allies were the ones who possessed the field at the end of the battle, meaning that they were the ones in a position to give an accurate count of the battlefield after the shooting stopped. As thus, their reports and those of other eyewitnesses (like the Swedish military source cited) are- for whatever their sins or not- probably our greatest and most reliable Primary Sources on the battle or at least its' aftereffects. So the idea that Wikipedia would draw considerably from such sources should be neither controversial nor surprising as you would note if you paid attention to Wikipedia's editing and source policies. The fact that you insist that this is "the most infamous war the USA has ever fought" and "one of the two where (it) was clearly the bad guy" (when in fact neither of the sort are true, especially given the infamy the Spanish occupation had by this point in time and the rancour over the Indian Wars and Indochinese ones) merely underlies the problem. You are acting out of bias first and foremost, not an actual reasoned, understanding alternative opinion with something to bring to the table. So you will forgive us if we should be rightfully leery of what you do and say. 75.36.166.243 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article keeps ignoring the Spanish sources and just basing it in pro-american and dubious sources of the imperialist time. Looks like remember the Maine and to hell with Spain is still in american's minds. The result is a yellow article.

--83.56.229.98 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Do you have any actual sources for any of this, like claiming it is based on "dubious sources of the imperialist time"? Especially ones that would reach as far as the extremely well documented casualty reports the US military put out when *they and their allies possessed the field of both battle and the campaign* and which are generally regarded as far more supported and reliable than Spanish military reporting of the era? No? How convenient. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and sources, and until you can provide them you should restrain yourself. 75.36.166.243 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article is nothing but a US side vision and it reads as an US Army report, reflecting the Spanish troops as nothing but the enemy. This is the Wikipedia in English, not the Wikipedia of the United States. It should reflect both sides of the conflict. --81.35.89.170 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that 81.35.89.170 (talk) is a sockpuppet. POV tag placed has been removed. The above comments are left. While the article does need more documentation from the Spanish side to make it a better article, it presents what was reported from the sources given. I am aware of less than sterling actions and behavior conducted by the Americans in 1898 and shortly there after. Example: See the book Imperial Cruise. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO POV are fit. The narrative of this article is all from the US Army Point of View, so it is not neutral at all. Made up names for US Public comsumption like "Hell's Pocket" or "Kettle Hill" (there are no such places in Cuba)and the constant use of calificatives and narratives that could not survive a proper neutral point of view article are evident that this is a Yellow Article, just like the made up articles in 1898. Is becouse that that I'm reinstating the POV tag until the article is rewritten using a Neutral POV. Also, I'm tagging all the inconsistencis, weasel words and narratives. --84.126.70.150 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"IMHO POV are fit". Your POV if not a reliable source or a justification, and nobody in their right mind should care about anybody's POV in and of itself when evaluating the merits of a case. This is especially the truth when your POV is founded on biased, conspiracy theory logic that claims "Kettle Hill" and "Hell's Pocket" do not exist in Cuba while *blatantly ignoring* the long, tried, and true habit of soldiers (regardless of origin) for "nicknaming" locations and objectives, and of official military doctrine that involves spitting out numbers like "Hill 112" or what have you. Case in point, the Hornet's Nest of the [Battle of Shiloh] or Sugar Loaf Mountain on the [Battle of Okinawa]. The sheer fact that you are so thoroughly uneducated about such a simple truth of military history and your overt (and downright conspiratorial) biases about that origin makes it clear that even if this article is in need of rewritting using a neutral POV, you are *Not Fit To Be The One To Do It.* 75.36.166.243 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious figures in the infobox (casualties)

Also everything there is unreferenced. --Niemti (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turned out I was right, and it was 124 killed Americans, not "2,000 dead" (other figure also being just someone's fantasy or trolling). --Niemti (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out you are wrong and you are using only the sources that fit you. I'm adding spanish sources. Because you know, as other user says, this is not wiki USA, but the wiki in english and ALL the sources must be used, including the defender's ones, not just the attacker's ones.

--83.56.229.98 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Mr.AllSourcesMustBeUsed, you clearly do not know jack all about Wikipedia's policies or common sense. Do you also believe "All sources must be used" when it comes to coverage of the Holocaust, including Nazi apologists who believe there was no such thing? There's a reason why this Wiki vets for reliable sources. I agree that sources other than American ones- including Spanish- should be taken into account just as well, but that includes properly vetting them. Which you are apparently not doing so, because you seem to have an axe to grind rather than a point to illuminate. 75.36.166.243 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also added neutral, first hand (Swedish Military Observer A. Wester) sources.

--83.56.229.98 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still one sided, talking only from the US side and using dubious and gratuitous calificatives and completely ignoring the bravery of the overwhelmed defenders.

--83.56.229.98 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's job to chronicle "the bravery of the overwhelmed defenders" or "the bravery of the attackers charging into a killing field." It is Wikipedia's job to chronicle the history and sources as we can tell. So if you have a source that can do what you propose and do it in accordance with Wiki's policies on sources and intent, put it in. Don't try to mutilate the entire article. 75.36.166.243 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Spanish/Pro-Spanish Sockpuppetry

Let's cut everything aside and ask one major thing: why are Spanish Military sources being privileged above all others, up to and including being cited first in the casualty boxes? Spanish military records from this period are not only very dubious (just look at their treatment of the Cuban, Philippine, and Moroccan conflicts around this time... if you want to tread through A Real Labyrinth of inefficiency, corruption, genuine attempts to change things, honesty, dishonesty, arse covering, lobbying for support, and countless other complicated factors), and again: the Spanish were driven from the field at the end of this battle, meaning that they weren't the ones who were in the best position to actually report or tally things in the most accurate way.

I agree that Spanish sources need representation. However, it seems like there is an agenda by some people to go beyond that and flat out the other extreme, even when it makes zero sense given Wikipedia's doctrines or basic intuition. So can we please have this fixed? 75.36.166.243 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2014

dsf

Photos of Rough Riders

Two photos of the Rough Riders are shown side by side in the article: one with a wider angle showing more soldiers and Roosevelt without a hat, the other showing fewer soldiers and Roosevelt with a hat. The caption gives an original title of "Colonel Roosevelt and his Rough Riders at the top of the hill which they captured, Battle of San Juan" for the first photo, and refers to the second as being cropped to remove other regiments. However, the title given is the title of the second photo fide the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/96521936/ , and it is not cropped from the original at the Library of Congress. Although the source of the first photo is said to be the Library of Congress, I cannot find it in their online digital catalog. MayerG (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]