Talk:Battle of Cieneguilla

message: * FORT UNION: CHAPTER THREE: MILITARY OPERATIONS BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR
* Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico
* NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AWARDS GRANTS FOR PROTECTION OF BATTLEFIELD LANDS
* First Dragoons:  Muster Rolls Battle of Cieneguilla 30 March 1854
Do a better Google search. :) --Petercorless 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also tagged the article with :Category:History of New Mexico. --Petercorless 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More resources for the battle and preservations efforts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I don't see how 

message: 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)
thread_title:  remove the old lady flag icon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I just changed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regading the number of Apaches and Utes, 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using published sources vs . . . . . ..... other things. 

message: " 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)
replies: text: And I believe his name was Thomas T. Fauntleroy? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  i just removed this sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  archeological site disclosures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I just removed this image from the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I just removed this category from the article. 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Consolidating with Jicarilla War article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/foun/hrs3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008145352/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=948 to http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=948
*Added  tag to http://musketoon.com/2006/11/dragoons-v-jicarilla-apache-the-battle-of-cieneguilla/
*Added  tag to http://musketoon.com/2005/01/muster-rolls-battle-of-cieneguilla-30-march-1854/
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) 14:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929122917/http://web.abqtrib.com/archives/diversions04/032604_diversions_tales.shtml to http://web.abqtrib.com/archives/diversions04/032604_diversions_tales.shtml
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) 01:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified