![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, I added a tag requesting that this article be divided into sections because it seems like it is long enough to be split into sections as suggested at WP:LAYOUT. I added another tag asking for more footnotes; with so many sources it would be nice to know whih says what. The tags were removed without explanation, by Bgallego, who I would especially like to hear from as to why the tags were removed.Thanks in advance, Synchronism ( talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC) And now they have been removed by Cumanche, can we please talk about this? Synchronism ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We're obviously butting heads. I think we should reach some kind of compromise to prevent further reverts. Lechonero ( talk) 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
To user:Cumanche: I used the compromise I suggested above. Please leave a message here if you'd like to discuss it. Lechonero ( talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
This article has been fully protected for one month due to the report of a dispute at WP:ANI. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to try to reach a compromise, and ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP if one is reached. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The protection of this page should be lifted. A couple of weeks ago a user (Lechonaro) removed "Indian" from an article about American Indians (Genizaros). Every time an attempt was made to revert back to "Indian," Lechonaro became more incensed. Lechonaros changes have resulted in inaccurate information that he inserted just before having the article frozen. The changes clearly reflect that he has little knowledge of the topic. The following statement for example is inaccurate! Genizaros were not "groups, but instead individuals. Moreover, they were not from New Mexico tribes. In fact the state of New Mexico did not exist at the time.
'Genízaros were groups from various tribes in New Mexico who were enslaved as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s. For example,
It is unfortunate that an interloper such as Lechonaro can put a freeze on a topic of such great importance after making edits that detract from the accuracy of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumanche ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Cumanche: You need to learn Wikipedia etiquette.
As for your accusations -- my ONLY objection was your unwillingness to cooperate with me on whether to use the term Indian or Native American. To resolve this, I proposed a compromise that we use neither term, but you never answered me. So, you left me no choice but to use the compromise I proposed which, of course, you later reverted. Also, I was careful to keep all of your new citations and I didn't add any new information. I simply rewrote the article in accordance with my compromise and to make the text flow better. The article's edit history and the comments on this talk page clearly demonstrate this.
I warned you that repeated reverts would result in a block but you ignored me. Hopefully you see my point now. Admins will likely take sterner action if you continue with your controlling behavior once this block expires. Lechonero ( talk) 01:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Lechonero, You have yourself admitted that you know nothing about the topic of Genizaros. I have questions regarding your intentions by making changes that alter the meaning of the Genizaro page and then having the page frozen. You asked for references and I provided them. Perhaps you should take some time to READ about a topic before rushing to alter the meaning of a page about the topic. My recommendation is that you read the works cited in the references. I would begin by reading the work of Estevan Rael Galvan, Ramon Gutierrez, and Bernardo Gallegos It will provide you with the background for you to be able to make informed comments about Genizaros. Best to you 06:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Cumanche (talk) Cumanche ( talk) 06:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
More on Lechoneros intentions.
Dear Dougweller, I am responding to your suggestion to elucidate or cross out the comments about Lechoneros intentions. I wrote that comment in good faith as I am dumbfounded as to why Lechonero would want to take the word "indian" out of an article that is about American Indians. If you look at the long list of references, some of which I have contributed, they address the topic of Genizaro Indians. I beleive Wikipedia is a great site and I have tried to do my part to contribute to the accuracy of the Genizaro page for the benefit of readers. In the past when suggestions have been made I have enjoyed them. My only contention with Lechonero is that he/she has changed the entry in such a way as to alter the accuracy of the page. Lechonero has him/herself admitted that he knows nothing about the topic. In response to my suggestion that he/she develop at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject, he/she wrote the following in the discussion section:
Cumanche: Before, I simply found you annoying. Now, I'm actually angry at you. Let's get a few things straight. 1) I don't have to read so much as a single sentence on this subject to contribute to this article as long as my edits are in good faith. The only knowledge I need is a basic familiarty of Wikipedia policy.
Dear Dougweller, I have a legitimate question as to Lechoneros intentions. I would absolutely love to assume that he/she is acting in good faith. However, the fact that he/she altered the meaning of the entry, and then requested that you freeze it after his/her misquided edit (please realize that I use misguided cautiously, but with confidence) is what I question. You can attest to this yourself if you look at the comment about genizaraos being comprised of groups from New Mexico. This creates an ambiguity as to who Genizaro Indians were. Groups could mean anybody. Lechonero him/herself has attested to the point that he/she knows nothing about the topic. I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was a shared website in which editors contribute to the accuracy and validity of the topic.
I ask you as an administrator to please consider editing the first paragraph of the article to read as follows:
Genízaros were Indian Slaves who served as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s.[3]
Please take a look at the references below. Genizaros were American Indian Slaves. Removing "American Indian" from the first paragraph alters the meaning of the peice and as I mentioned earlier....I question why someone would want to alter the meaning of such an important topic.
In good Faith 207.114.147.200 ( talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Bailey, L.R. Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1996.
Ebright, Malcolm and Rick Hendricks. The Witches of Abiquiú: The Governor, the Priest, the Genízaro Indians and the Devil. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006.
Gallegos, Bernardo, "'Dancing the Comanches', The Santo Niño, La Virgen (of Guadalupe) and the Genizaro Indians of New Mexico," In Indigenous Symbols and Practices in the Catholic Church: Visual Culture, Missionization and Appropriation. Kathleen J. Martin, Editor. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishers, 2010.
Rael Galvan, Estévan, "Identifying and Capturing Identity: Narratives of American Indian Servitude, Colorado and New Mexico, 1750-1930." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.147.200 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genízaro. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, I added a tag requesting that this article be divided into sections because it seems like it is long enough to be split into sections as suggested at WP:LAYOUT. I added another tag asking for more footnotes; with so many sources it would be nice to know whih says what. The tags were removed without explanation, by Bgallego, who I would especially like to hear from as to why the tags were removed.Thanks in advance, Synchronism ( talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC) And now they have been removed by Cumanche, can we please talk about this? Synchronism ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We're obviously butting heads. I think we should reach some kind of compromise to prevent further reverts. Lechonero ( talk) 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
To user:Cumanche: I used the compromise I suggested above. Please leave a message here if you'd like to discuss it. Lechonero ( talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
This article has been fully protected for one month due to the report of a dispute at WP:ANI. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to try to reach a compromise, and ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP if one is reached. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The protection of this page should be lifted. A couple of weeks ago a user (Lechonaro) removed "Indian" from an article about American Indians (Genizaros). Every time an attempt was made to revert back to "Indian," Lechonaro became more incensed. Lechonaros changes have resulted in inaccurate information that he inserted just before having the article frozen. The changes clearly reflect that he has little knowledge of the topic. The following statement for example is inaccurate! Genizaros were not "groups, but instead individuals. Moreover, they were not from New Mexico tribes. In fact the state of New Mexico did not exist at the time.
'Genízaros were groups from various tribes in New Mexico who were enslaved as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s. For example,
It is unfortunate that an interloper such as Lechonaro can put a freeze on a topic of such great importance after making edits that detract from the accuracy of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumanche ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Cumanche: You need to learn Wikipedia etiquette.
As for your accusations -- my ONLY objection was your unwillingness to cooperate with me on whether to use the term Indian or Native American. To resolve this, I proposed a compromise that we use neither term, but you never answered me. So, you left me no choice but to use the compromise I proposed which, of course, you later reverted. Also, I was careful to keep all of your new citations and I didn't add any new information. I simply rewrote the article in accordance with my compromise and to make the text flow better. The article's edit history and the comments on this talk page clearly demonstrate this.
I warned you that repeated reverts would result in a block but you ignored me. Hopefully you see my point now. Admins will likely take sterner action if you continue with your controlling behavior once this block expires. Lechonero ( talk) 01:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Lechonero, You have yourself admitted that you know nothing about the topic of Genizaros. I have questions regarding your intentions by making changes that alter the meaning of the Genizaro page and then having the page frozen. You asked for references and I provided them. Perhaps you should take some time to READ about a topic before rushing to alter the meaning of a page about the topic. My recommendation is that you read the works cited in the references. I would begin by reading the work of Estevan Rael Galvan, Ramon Gutierrez, and Bernardo Gallegos It will provide you with the background for you to be able to make informed comments about Genizaros. Best to you 06:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Cumanche (talk) Cumanche ( talk) 06:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
More on Lechoneros intentions.
Dear Dougweller, I am responding to your suggestion to elucidate or cross out the comments about Lechoneros intentions. I wrote that comment in good faith as I am dumbfounded as to why Lechonero would want to take the word "indian" out of an article that is about American Indians. If you look at the long list of references, some of which I have contributed, they address the topic of Genizaro Indians. I beleive Wikipedia is a great site and I have tried to do my part to contribute to the accuracy of the Genizaro page for the benefit of readers. In the past when suggestions have been made I have enjoyed them. My only contention with Lechonero is that he/she has changed the entry in such a way as to alter the accuracy of the page. Lechonero has him/herself admitted that he knows nothing about the topic. In response to my suggestion that he/she develop at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject, he/she wrote the following in the discussion section:
Cumanche: Before, I simply found you annoying. Now, I'm actually angry at you. Let's get a few things straight. 1) I don't have to read so much as a single sentence on this subject to contribute to this article as long as my edits are in good faith. The only knowledge I need is a basic familiarty of Wikipedia policy.
Dear Dougweller, I have a legitimate question as to Lechoneros intentions. I would absolutely love to assume that he/she is acting in good faith. However, the fact that he/she altered the meaning of the entry, and then requested that you freeze it after his/her misquided edit (please realize that I use misguided cautiously, but with confidence) is what I question. You can attest to this yourself if you look at the comment about genizaraos being comprised of groups from New Mexico. This creates an ambiguity as to who Genizaro Indians were. Groups could mean anybody. Lechonero him/herself has attested to the point that he/she knows nothing about the topic. I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was a shared website in which editors contribute to the accuracy and validity of the topic.
I ask you as an administrator to please consider editing the first paragraph of the article to read as follows:
Genízaros were Indian Slaves who served as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s.[3]
Please take a look at the references below. Genizaros were American Indian Slaves. Removing "American Indian" from the first paragraph alters the meaning of the peice and as I mentioned earlier....I question why someone would want to alter the meaning of such an important topic.
In good Faith 207.114.147.200 ( talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Bailey, L.R. Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1996.
Ebright, Malcolm and Rick Hendricks. The Witches of Abiquiú: The Governor, the Priest, the Genízaro Indians and the Devil. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006.
Gallegos, Bernardo, "'Dancing the Comanches', The Santo Niño, La Virgen (of Guadalupe) and the Genizaro Indians of New Mexico," In Indigenous Symbols and Practices in the Catholic Church: Visual Culture, Missionization and Appropriation. Kathleen J. Martin, Editor. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishers, 2010.
Rael Galvan, Estévan, "Identifying and Capturing Identity: Narratives of American Indian Servitude, Colorado and New Mexico, 1750-1930." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.147.200 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genízaro. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)