Talk:Genízaro

Sections and footnotes

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)

I would offer to improve the article, but I'm not completely familiar with all the material. If you (I realize now you're one person) don't think the improvements that I suggested are necessary I would like to know why. I haven't alleged any malicious intent. I just want to see better New Mexico-related articles. When you don't participate in a talk page conversation, but continue to make the same edit being discussed on the talk page without explanation, I don't know what to think except that you are reverting edits as one would vandalism, and I haven't vandalized the article. Please discuss this. Synchronism (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of Native American vs Indian

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)

You have reverted my changes twice within 24 hours without any effort to compromise. If you do this more than three times within 24 hours to the same article I will report you for a 3RR which will likely result in your account being blocked. Lechonero (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lechonaro We the Genizaro people of New Mexico, as a state recognized Indigenous group, pride ourselves in finally being able to define ourselves to the world. We choose the word Indian as it is the most widely used among New Mexico Natives and among Native Peoples in the US for that matter. Why is the Bureau of Indian Affairs called the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Identity is a very touchy and important Issue for us Indians! Please have respect for us and our right to name ourselves. We do not go and try to tell Puerto Ricans that they should call yourselves Boricuas, or Borniqueno. Why would you want to dictate how we should define ourselves? Help me understand why you would want to vandalize the Genizaro Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumanche (talk • contribs) 10:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a page that in a sense represents us and our children to the world. Please be respectful of attempt to represent our people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumanche (talk • contribs) 10:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't vandalize anything. I find that comment offensive. All of my edits were in good faith. Secondly, I have no way of knowing whether you really are a Genizaro, just as you have no idea whether I'm really Puerto Rican. Thirdly, you've reverted my edits yet again without a compromise. You're obviously engaged in an edit war with me. Wikipedia's policies prohibit this.

I hate intransigence but I'm always open to compromise. Here's mine: Let's rewrite the article so that the words Native American and Indian never appear. We can simply use the names of the individual tribes referred to in the article.

Also, I have replaced the tags you removed because you did so without discussion and without resolving the issues they point out. That's another Wikipedia policy you're ignoring.

By the way, if you really are who claim to be, you should not be using a Wikipedia article to represent your people to the world. Wikipedia is not a public relations tool (See What Wikipedia is not). Use a privately funded website instead. This way you can set it up however you like. Lechonero (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

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)

Protected

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)

Lift the block

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)

I previously added indents and corrected the quotations to this post to make it more readable. However I have now restored it as you originally posted it to demonstrate how sloppy your posting habits are. Lechonero (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no 'interlopers' on Wikipedia, we are all editors and can edit anything we want unless the community has banned us from certain topics. Lechonaro did not and could not protect the page, it was protected due to the dispute. Both of you need to respect each other, and you, Cumanche, need to recognise that this is not your page and that you don't have to be an expert to edit an article. The page will be protected until you all agree to play nice. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely believe I'm dealing politely with Cumanche but he's engaging in WP:OWN. Also he doesn't use the posting guidelines on WP:TALK. I've never seen him sign a single one of his posts here or anywhere else. Lechonero (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Lechonero's response

Cumanche: You need to learn Wikipedia etiquette.

• Place new comments on the bottom of an article's talk page unless you're commenting on a specific section in the middle of that page, in which case the comment should go at the bottom of that section.
• Always sign your comments with four tildes so that bots don't have to identify them.
• Each new comment within a section should be indented one space further than the one above it. Do this by using colons. Each colon indents a paragraph by one space.
• Put some information on your user page. Right now there's nothing there.
• Calling me an interloper is very nearly another policy violation, namely, WP:CIVIL. The word interloper suggests that I'm an intruder. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keep in mind anybody is free to edit any article on Wikipedia as long as those edits are in good faith. Your passion for this article doesn't exempt it from that rule.
• My account name is Lechonero (it means chef of roast suckling pig in Spanish), not Lechonaro or Lechonaros. I always make the effort to spell your account name correctly. You should do me the same courtesy.

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's lack of knowledge of Genizaros

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)

Rather than the vague implications, please either strike the comments about intentions or elucidate. Read WP:AGF first. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My reaction to Cumanche's comments

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.

2) I didn't freeze this article because I don't have the authority to do it. I pointed out your reverts to the WP:ANI. Then an administrator decided to freeze it.

3) You don't have the authority to control the content of this article. Nobody does. All the information in every Wikipedia article is there because of a consensus reached by all the editors who contributed to it. This can be a long, frustrating, conflict-filled process, but this is the nature of Wikipedia. I notice you've been editing this article for two and a half years with almost no input from other editors. You've just been lucky.

4) My only contributions to this article have been copy editing and the suggestion of a compromise that we neither use the phrase Indian nor Native American. I added nothing. I removed nothing. In fact, you are the only one who added information after I added the citation tags. If you don't believe me then look through the article's edit history. If you don't know how, then figure it out for yourself. I'm tired of teaching you how to use Wikipedia only to see you criticize and insult me later.

6) Efforts to control this article's content will only result in more page protections and perhaps a block on your account. Have a look at the block log to see what's happened to other editors who have behaved like you.

5) Your last comment suggests I was doing something other than editing in good faith. Strike (strike) or delete the sentence in your comment that starts with, I have questions... or I will report you again on the WP:ANI but this time for a personal attack. Lechonero (talk) 23:39, 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)

Wow, you ignored absolutely everything I said. I might as well have written nothing at all. Lechonero (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617225958/http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/etd-05302008-122456/unrestricted/Avery_Doris_Thesis.pdf to http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/etd-05302008-122456/unrestricted/Avery_Doris_Thesis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228142044/http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/ihc/00-03-00.htm to http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/ihc/00-03-00.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)