Talk:Army of New Mexico

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Army of New Mexico. 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/20090806185924/http://www.currensnet.com:80/Muster%20Rolls/7txasmu.HTM to http://www.currensnet.com/Muster%20Rolls/7txasmu.HTM
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) 08:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As such, the article title a bit misleading. I think moving it to a more appropriately named article, like Confederate Army of Arizona, would be best. And maybe even using that new article to also merge information from the Company A, Arizona Rangers article too. 2601:8C2:8280:2860:A1E1:DAF1:C21:59C7 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The field army to which you’re referring was rarely referred to as the Army of New Mexico, in fact, it sometimes was referred to as Sibley’s troops or even an extension of the Confederate Army of Texas under Baylor. Sibley wasn’t even from New Mexico, and he certainly wasn’t able to hold significant portions of the US territory of New Mexico for long enough for any foreign entity to recognize the claims. Mesilla, the supposed capital of Confederate Arizona, was under John Baylor’s command for less than half a year. Not only that, it was claimed as the capital of Confederate Arizona, not Confederate New Mexico. So the Army of New Mexico is indeed a misleading title for this article. 2601:8C2:8280:2860:91C1:A710:77B7:6282 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no. It may be a missleading title for the army. But despite this, and despite other designations like Sibley Brigade, it still is the name it had and under which it was and is referred to. Simple facts. ...GELongstreet (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying its a misleading title for the army, I'm saying that it is very rarely referred to, by scholarly sources, as the Army of New Mexico. It is, in fact, holding this article back from discussing the broader topic for which it encompasses. I completely stand by merging it with Company A, Arizona Rangers under a new article name, specifically Confederate Army of Arizona or preferably Army of Confederate Arizona. It would alleviate the issue of being also mis-designated, as you said, as Sibley Brigade or even Baylor’s Command. Describing it as the Army of Confederate Arizona more than adequately discusses this set of military units for what they were, an attempt by the Confederacy to establish a link to California by capitalizing on the Union's proposed Arizona territory. 2601:8C2:8280:2860:9C5B:ED53:4FE:9C5C (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is this broader topic you´re talking about? Seems a broader topic could warrant an article on it´s own which you´re perfectly free to create. However Army of New Mexico is an original term with a specific meaning and this article is about that. If I get you right and you want to write about all Confederate forces operating in the area then I´m afraid that both Army of Confederate Arizona and Confederate Army of Arizona, resulting in Army of Arizona, would create a given name that was, to my knowledge, not used and therefore be wrong in any way. I´m not sure if there are any articles dealing solely with units used within departments, beside various Orders of Battle of course, and much material is already included e.g. in Confederate Arizona, New Mexico Territory in the American Civil War and New Mexico Campaign and the units themselves of course in the respective unit lists. However that doesn´t say that parts can`t be used again and what could actually work would be an article about said Confederate military district. Correct titles originally used would be e.g. (be it with or without Confederate and/or Military) District of Arizona and District of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1868, the Pictorial History of the Civil War referred to this as "Sibley's Texas Rangers", official signposts for the Battle of Valverde referred to them as the "Confederate Texas Volunteers". The first mainstream widespread use of the term Confederate Army of New Mexico was a book published in 1978, which was based on earlier works written in the 60s about the Confederate troops in the New Mexico Territory, but even in those books it refers to them as clearly as either Confederate Arizona or Texan Confederate troops. The broader topic to which I'm referring is that the Company A, Arizona Rangers and this Army of New Mexico were indeed one in the same, they were more accurately the Army of Confederate Arizona, though they were specifically Texan troops. The Union referred to them as "Texas Rangers" and the Confederacy referred to them as Sibley's or Baylor's troops. I'm still for a "Army of Confederate Arizona" article encompassing this Army of New Mexico and Company A, Arizona Rangers, as that would also appropriately tie these troops directly to the respective attempt at Confederate Arizona. Especially considering that at the time, the Confederacy really wanted to create a specifically Confederate Arizona to get resources from California. 2601:8C2:8280:2860:9C5B:ED53:4FE:9C5C (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight correction. The first mainstream widespread use of the term Army of New Mexico was not in 1978 but in 1861, by the Confederates themselves. I´m afraid you still don´t get the naming conventions ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I clearly stated that the 1978 publication Confederate Army of New Mexico was based on works from the 1960s. The Confederate records and histories themselves widely call this “Sibley’s Brigade” during the 1860s. I do understand naming conventions, I’m saying the “Army of New Mexico” naming convention is incorrect, as even the Confederates rarely used it. 2601:8C2:8280:2860:40E5:2C7B:4F50:F28E (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, apparently I overread that sentence part. However it doesn´t change things, even with alternative names available (like so often) Army of New Mexico remains an original term used in the original time and as the article is about that it is perfectly valid. Army of Arizona on the other hand is not an original term and would, ironically, mislead as article name as it follows field army naming convention while there was none. Meanwhile, as said before, e.g. forms of District of Arizona would be perfectly fine. So instead of talking about merging stuff and in the end deleting this small-scope article about a brigade-sized field army, why don´t you just create that new article with that larger scope you aim for? ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m a bit too wordy, it’s kinda my mad too. What I’m trying to say is, the Army of New Mexico was not the naming convention used at the time. I’m thinking that combining the two articles into an article like, “Sibley’s Brigade” or the “Army of Arizona” would lead to a more fruitful coverage of both subjects. As of now, there is no room in either article to explain Texas’ motivations, such as their role in attempting to claim land in the New Mexico Territory during both the Mexican and American territorial eras. And, it was one of the main reasons Arizona was split from New Mexico to begin with. Combining these subjects would allow for accuracy in how and why the Confederacy wanted more than just a link to California. I honestly hadn’t known about Texas’ landgrab attempt from New Mexico, until I’ve been doing research into these naming conventions. 174.50.83.172 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This unit was actually just composed of mostly Texas Mounted Rifles and some [[Company A, Arizona Rangers|Arizona Rangers]]