Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Cieneguilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have created a very short stub

[edit]

for the Battle of Cieneguilla and have put my questions on the discussion page. I am going to ask this of all the candidates and would prefer your answer to be here, though duplicating it on the talk page seems like a good idea. Carptrash 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the Battle of Cieneguilla for a couple of years, mostly because it occurred perhaps 10 miles from where I live. There is not much out about this event (see here), on wikipedia or elsewhere, and so much of what I have to offer is perilously close to being the dreaded original research. The exact location of the event is not very public knowledge, it is remote and very close to the edge of Picuris Pueblo, where one should not just go wandering in. However when I did locate the site of the fight I discovered the markers left by US government archeologists who did a survey. So, anyway, my question is, what role, if any should such research play in the constructing of a wikipedia article? Also, the National Park Service archeologist would prefer that the site location not be public knowledge. How should I handle this request in my write-up? Carptrash 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the archeologists are going to publish their results. This will be material you can quote on the topic. If it is OK you can take some pictures from the excavation, but wait until they have finished. The big problem are tombraiders who dig for anything they can sell appropriate it to themselves illegally. The biggest problem is that this way they destroy the possibility for a closer interpretation of the findings based on their relative position. Wandalstouring 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a first cut I would question notability at present, the article makes no assertion of notability other than the occurence. So the first thing I'd be asking for is some published evidence of importance.
Clearly both WP:COI and WP:NOR would have some bearing on how to approach things. My interpretaion of COI isn't too strict so I wouldn't wish to prevent you writing on what's clearly a hobby. In terms of OR and reliability I'd be prepared to discuss unpublished sources as long as there was some way to demonstrate their authority. There is a lot of material which could be used but doesn't meet a strict interpretaion of the guidelines, ephemera, internal documents (regimental history for example) which are now available in public domain etc. I'd be expecting a fairly rigorous discussion of the situation though, drawing attention to the ephemeral nature of the evidence used to support the article and caveating the content. There are some who take a much harder line than this but I'm very conscious that WP brings people from all disciplines, not just academia!
I would not support the use of the archeologists markers as evidence and would await the publication of their results before it can be used.
If the detailed location of the site is not published then I would respect the wishes of the archeologist. There are many good reasons for not encouraging visits to sites where field research is not complete. Should the location be included in any subsequent publication of results then it can be sourced and included.
ALR 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They, the archeologists were there perhaps 5 or 6 years ago (I was there on the day of the 100th anniversary and they'd been there years before that) and nothing beyond a newspaper article has come to my attention. As far as the notability of the skirmish goes, well that will hopefully come out soon. I mostly posted this stub to have a place to ask candidates questions about the use of original research and about their attitudes to requests from officials and other authority figures. Carptrash 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave the mention of the specific archaeological markers out as non-notable and original research, but I'd probably put in a DMS geographical coordinate so people could find the general location on a map. --Petercorless 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article and maybe by doing that i've answered some of the questions raised above. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be misinterpreting the purpose of this exercise, but as it appears to be something of a test towards our opinions and approaches as asst coordinators, I'm responding w/o reading anyone else's responses. -- (1) I think that if you have access to actual research data or results, even unpublished, it's fine to use here on Wikipedia, as it's produced by professional archaeologists & researchers, and reflects the truthful, accurate results of their research even if it's not officially published. If, however, you've simply found the site and are essentially interpreting it yourself based on what you've found, then I would advise against pursuing it unless you're a professional. Using unpublished research produced by professionals is not original research, but interpreting the site on your own is. (2) I couldn't care less what The Government wants, but I have a great respect for archaeologists and researchers - if they do not want their site invaded, trampled, or otherwise disturbed by visitors or tourists, then I think we owe them our cooperation in not revealing its precise location. LordAmeth 11:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are one of only two or three who seemed to have understood "the purpose of this exercise." I was not asking for help in finding resources, rather trying to get your {all the candidates} opinions on the issues I apparently did NOT present well. Yet you seem to have understood them. I have, for example a letter, a typed version of a letter, given to me by the Nat PArk Service archeologist, written by an officer who was in New Mexico at the time that was the catalyst for the Court of Inquiry that followed the battle. Yet this letter has never, to my knowledge, been published, nor do I even know where the original is. I also have perhaps a dozen pages of the transcript of of C of I, also given to my by the NPS folks that I don't think has been published. I feel that there are crucial to the telling and understanding of this event. You (if I am reading you correctly) suggest that I should use them in subsequent postings here and I intend to do so. Thank you. Carptrash 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to respond late, I but I have been bogged down a bit over the weekend. In my opinion if the site of the battle is wanted to be kept away from public by archaeologists, I think we should respect their wishes. But I do think that we sould put a marker on a map to show an approximate location of the batle field. Kyriakos 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More resources for the battle and preservations efforts

[edit]

Do a better Google search. :) --Petercorless 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My general comments is the stub can be easily fleshed out into a good short article drawing from the above resources, which I would expect an editor to look around and check before doing things such as marking them for deletion (AfD), and also to corroborate the assertions of even a stub. I'd encourage you to do a bit more checking, as what I came up with was only cursory initial findings. You mention archaeologists. In a way, we are data archaeologists. So... Get into a search engine and start digging! --Petercorless 23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also tagged the article with Category:History of New Mexico. --Petercorless 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Found within top 5 response on a Google search for "Battle of Cieneguilla" Lmcelhiney 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how

[edit]

this sentence really works, "According to Pvt. James A. Bennett, (aka James Bronson) a Sergeant who . . ... " so I've made him a private for now and perhaps he'll get a promotion shortly. Carptrash 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) In Forts and Forays it says of him, "In six years his rank climbed from private to sargent before an unknown infraction reduced him to the ranks." Where he was in March 1854 is not yet clear. Carptrash 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a ref which tells us that James Bennett and James Bronson (aka Beaty) are the same person? I don't doubt it as both men were from Virginia as Davidson was but i am just being curious. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are the same person. I have the book at home (I'm at KLDK now). but I'll post it later. As I recall it, ..... never mind, I'll look it up. Carptrash 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit surprised to se Bennett/Bronson re-emerge as both a Sargent and a Private. Since it is my policy to not revert folks edits of my edits I'm, hoping for some explaination. The story on the fellows two names - from his book Forts and Forays is that as a 18 year old he (Bennett) got drunk and enlisted as a 21 year old Bronson. Since he later deserted he probably became Bennett again at that time and it is as Bennett that he publishes his memoirs. Carptrash 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to edit the refences to Bennett/Bronson, and include his story here in this page, and make a redirect to this article, since I doubt he will get a full biography elsewhere as a notable person. However, his story here might make for a nice bit of color. --Petercorless 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can expand on him a bit -though today is my daughter's birthday and tomorrow is a largish social event at my house, so it might wait a bit. However Bennett's memoirs of his life and times in New Mexico is one of the significant first person accounts of that time, so I think an argument for notability could be made. Carptrash 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remove the old lady flag icon

[edit]

The old lady as flag icon is inappropriate and I kindly request her removal. Similar would be if we use Paris Hilton's image instead of the US-Flag on all articles about the US armed forces. Wandalstouring 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed

[edit]

the Apache strength in the box from 400 to 250. No one was counting the Apaches, but Kit Carson who arrived the next day estimated that the dragoons were outnumbered 4 to 1, which I translated to 250. Carptrash 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then best to show a range, 250–400. Bennett's own eyewitness account says 400: "Found ourselves at 8 o'clock a.m. in ambush surrounded by 400 Indians," Pvt. James A. Bennett of the dragoons noted in his journal entry for March 30, 1854. "Fought hard until 12 noon when we started to retreat." Source: A Losing Battle Also, if you have revised the estimate by Kit Carson, quote him as a source and put it in the article so that people know where the "250" came from. --Petercorless 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regading the number of Apaches and Utes,

[edit]

General John Garland in his report dated April 1, 1854, two days after the action wrote, "The Indians, Jicarillas and Utahs, have managed to combine a force of 250 warriors and . . . . . " Carptrash 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a classic bit of original research I removed a published but wrong reference source that placed this engagement in a Apache village near Dixon. There was no village, all the other sources agree on that and I live in Dixon and this site is not nearby. Carptrash 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I read that Lt. Bell, who was out here (Northern New Mexico) fighting Apaches at that (1854) time contradicts General Garland and states that there were no Utes and that the number of Indians was 'only" 130 or so. That still outnumbers the dragoons two0to-one, but that's a lot less than 4 to 1 or worse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In cases where there is uncertainty like this, it is best to put a range, and cite each of the conflicting sources. Rather than make an assumption that any of them are correct, especially without evidence, it would be best to cite these sources which alternately say 130, 250, or 400 Native Americans, and then put 130–400 in the range for the forces involved in the battle. --Petercorless 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using published sources vs . . . . . ..... other things.

[edit]

I just received an email from someone who is preparing to publish an account of this fight in the New Mexico Historical Review - a pretty solid source as far as they go. Here is what he writes: (The bold is mine)

Einar: Thanks for the note. The dead are buried in Taos. The Jicarillas were apparently led by Chacon.
I have read Bell's letter and the transcript of the court of inquiry. As noted by Bell, the troops did not have sufficient ammunition for a 4 hour battle. He (Sgt. or Pvt. Bennett) testified favorably to Davidson at the court of inquiry. Davidson had made him a sergeant in Company B and Mrs. Davidson had kindly tended to his wounds after the battle. He was most certainly biased. Bell was not allowed to testify at the hearing and cross-examine Davidson's witnesses. In short, the hearing was a cover up with Davidson's version taken as gospel for the next 150 years.

So the "biased" and the "cover up" versions are what have been published and is thus (question for candidates) are still what we should be using to write the article? Carptrash 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite references and then also cite counter-references. Let the people decide between the claims. If this person is going to publish their work soon, cite it also. I am usually of the opinion that more evidence, even conflicting evidence, is better than making a blind stab and hoping the view you picked is correct. --Petercorless 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i just removed this sentence

[edit]

" disobeyed the orders of Thomas L. Fauntleroy, a newly promoted Colonel from the Second Dragoons " because Fauntleroy did not arrive until the summer of 1854. At the time of the fight his commanding officer was Major Blake. Carptrash 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe his name was Thomas T. Fauntleroy? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i find the new image here

[edit]

to be . . . ..... unnecessary. there is nothing in the article to suggest that this image might reflect happened in this fight, nothing to even suggest that the slain soldiers were scalped. "Gratuitous." Isn't that the word to describe it? I just visited the site yesterday, shot a few more pictures of the cairns erected where the bodies were found, so perhaps I'm a bit too involved? Looking for another opinion here. Carptrash (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to just move the image. It really adds nothing to the article. Carptrash (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What it adds is that it gives the reader a visual example of an Apache warrior. It also shows the most commen fate for U.S. troops killed in the war. Political correctness has no place on wiki, this is an encyclopedia not propaganda. For your information, there may not be evidence of scalping after this battle but it most likely did occurr as this was the common practice for all Apaches attempting to prevent dead U.S. soldiers from entering the spirit world.

I will replace the engraving now.--Az81964444 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cieneguilla.jpg
I think I will respond by saying that your image is propaganda. Your statement that, "It also shows the most commen fate for U.S. troops killed in the war. " is interesting too. Which war might that be? Looks like (to me, anyway) that you bought too much of the propaganda that you are now pushing. I was at the site a few days ago talking to a college prof that who informed me that an archeologist recently figured out that the battle was started by the troops shooting women and children who were there making pottery. How about we replace your image with this one instead? Carptrash (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things occur to me.
  • One we dont know the true povenence of this ingraving and who it really depicts. It does not appear to be like any photo of an Apache I ever saw. It is derived from a site with no reference to its original source. This may make it questionable for use on that basis alone.
  • Two, as to Apache scalping anyone I would want a better source than that same website. Preferably some account of the battle discribing this acivity or the state of the bodies when recovered.
  • I think we should drop the picture until we have good reason to suppose it depicts an Apache or what someone at the time of the battle thought was one.Asiaticus (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Az81964444, if reliable sources do not mention soldiers being scalped, the image would be original research for this particular article. We can't even claim the image depicts an Apache without knowing the author and title of the engraving. APK say that you love me 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Engraving

[edit]

---I think I will respond by saying that your image is propaganda.

Posting an image of something that did in fact occurr during the Apache Wars is not propaganda.

Stating the fact that a majority of U.S. troops killed in the Apache Wars were scalped is not propaganda.

You ask for a source that can confirm that Apaches scalped American troops after the battle.

I never said they were in the first place, I merely suggested that it probably did occur because that was very commen in that time and because it was an Apache custom.

By no means did I intend to demonize the Apache people as you have the white man with your cartoon.

The only reason it was posted there is because the origional image I posted was deleted. I did not choose the image because it depicts the battle, it does not by the way. I chose the engraving because it was the best I could find on the internet in terms of colors used. (Most of the pictures I have found are in black and white.)

As for whether or not the picture depicts an Apache.

I found it on a website about Apaches and written by an Apache, I think this can conclude that the engraving depicts an Apache warrior practicing a commen native American custom.

Here you go: www.freewebs.com/apachevilliage/scalping.htm

As for political correctness, you removed the image because it depicts a minority commiting a gruesome act and in todays world, only the angry white man is capable of such acts and only the angry white man can be depicted committing atrocities. This is what I seem to have understood from your first reply.

If you want to continue crying about the historical fact that Apaches scalped people I will remove the image and find something more politically correct so it does not further damage you fragile eyes and or mind.

one more thing

How is this portion of your argument even relevant to this discussion?

---I was at the site a few days ago talking to a college prof that who informed me that an archeologist recently figured out that the battle was started by the troops shooting women and children who were there making pottery.

I am not an archeologist but do much study about Arizonan history. What I do know about archeology is that there is no way an archeologists can determine the battle began as result of a massacre. Unless they dig up an old native who was present at the battle but that is not going to happen is it? It is something that can never be confirmed and is lost to history unfortunately.

Did that professor you mentioned warp back in time to see the beginning of the fight? I did not think so. You may have heard his opinion, the problem is; opinion is not fact. Finding blood stains and bones next to a pile of pottery is not fact either.

Honestly I dont know much about the battle, maybe it began this way or maybe not, either way it is irrelevant to the discussion and proof that you are more interested with shaming white men than verifying the image. This is what your comments and cartoon expresses.

Do not respond because I promise you I will not read it.

--Az81964444 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As for whether or not the picture depicts an Apache. I found it on a website about Apaches and written by an Apache, I think this can conclude that the engraving depicts an Apache warrior practicing a commen native American custom. Here you go: www.freewebs.com/apachevilliage/scalping.htm"
Just to be clear, in case User:Aj4444 chooses to respond, freewebs.com is not a reliable source. APK say that you love me 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much point in responding to this posting if my replies are not going to be read. If anyone else wants to continue discussing the point above please let me know and I'll be glad to carry on. And, I must say, I am not much enamored with this new image either. There were horses at the fight too. So can I just post a nice picture of a horse? Will that satisfy everyone? Carptrash (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

archeological site disclosures

[edit]

Fascinating article! I really like to read articles like this containing both original accounts of the events and information provided by modern archeological research. Another comparable event studied by a modern archeological study was the massacre of striking miners in the 1914 Ludlow Massacre. There is a 2008 National Historic Landmark nomination document linked from the Ludlow Tent Colony Site article which describes the archeological findings (largely in support of strikers' view, opposite corporate and government claims). Wikipedia coverage yet to be developed.

But, I want to comment in response to someone's old comment far above advocating including geographical coordinates of the site in the article. Please don't. The National Park Service's National Register staff, with which i correspond occasionally, is concerned about wikipedia coverage of address-restricted archeological sites. I think public disclosure by knowledgeable locals can eventually lead to huge damage. There are a few previously restricted sites which are now public sites and are adequately protected by museums built over them and fences and security and so on, but for the most part archeological sites cannot be protected 24/7. Thieves do systematically target private houses where valuable artworks have been disclosed to the internet somehow; this will surely happen for archeological sites revealed by wikipedians. Not sure where you at currently on this. Anyhow, thanks again for the interesting read! doncram (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not go public as to the exact location of this fight. An unnamed public official helped me locate it several years ago with the understanding that I not take a metal detector or a GPS and not tell too many folks exactly where it is. Fair enough. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed this image from the article

[edit]
Utes on horseback

It is taken almost a quarter of a century after the events of this article happened. That would like showing German soldiers in WW2 uniforms in an article about WW1 because it was the best we could do. Not, in my opinion, better than nothing. Carptrash (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed this category from the article.

[edit]

Category: Massacres by Native Americans
To claim that a fight, instigated by the US Army, and in which they in turn suffered major losses was a "Massacres by Native Americans" is silly. Maybe even worse than that. Carptrash (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating with Jicarilla War article

[edit]

I suggest this article is consolidated with the Jicarilla War article - since the material is largely about that battle. I further suggest expanding both articles to provide a bit more insight into why the battle began (i.e., it was about more than stealing of cattle. (such as information in the history section of Jicarilla Apache I am happy to do that. Thoughts anyone?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to expand the Jicarilla War article, on the origins of the conflict but the battle/skirmish articles should remain separate. This one in particular has many features of interest that makie it worthy of a separate article.Asiaticus (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process (besides doing my laundry) of expanding both the War and it's origins. I am a bit vague about the "war" in that the dates involved seem a bit arbitrary and this is not a war that I am finding reference to in my research. Lots of incidents, to be sure, but it does not seem to be referred to as the Jicarilla War all that much. Or at all. Could this be a term created by wikipedia? I'll look harder, perhaps you all can too? In any case I am not in favor of combining anything here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Cieneguilla. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cieneguilla. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Cieneguilla&oldid=1199627746"