Talk:Battle of Ciudad Juárez (1911)

Tom Mix
Checked the footnote on Tom Mix's participation. It describes him as a 'future' Hollywood star. The IMDB lists him in at least two movies in 1912. Doubt he commuted between Hollywood and the Mexican Revolution. Unless challenged/refuted intend to remove picture and citation Tapered (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummm, the source is given and there's even an online link provided to the claim. Also, this battle was in 1911. Movies where in 1912. Please don't remove sourced material unless you yourself can provide a reliable source which questions the claim (in which case both sources should be included).radek (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The exact text in the source is:
 * Among the combatants was a sizable contingent of foreign mercenaries and adventurers, particularly experts in machine-guns and dynamite. Names that recur in the copious sources for the battle are the Boer Ben Viljoen, who had fought the British in the South African War of 1899-1902; A. W. Lewis, a Canadian machine gunner; Lou Carpentier, a French artillery technician; Oscar Creighton from New York, a dynamite man; and Tom mix, later to be famous as the star of Hollywood westerns of the silent era.radek (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The commute was plausible, it was an overnight trip by train from Hollywood which hadn't yet become that prestigious. He certainly was an adventurous and enterprising character who traveled quite frequently. The short (approx. five minute) silent films that characterized his early film career would not have been too great a hindrance and many of the films were shot even closer to Juarez, in Las Vegas, New Mexico. But his participation in the battle and acquaintance with Villa is contestable. By some accounts he was an entertainer who excelled at self-promotion, deserted his own military, and created a fictional biography. It appears that a 1982 work of fiction has done much to perpetuate this possible tall tale, as some historical/biographical sources do cite it. Waffling about his participation would probably be best kept at Tom Mix, but it seems like some sort of note in this article may be warranted.Synchronism (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone is going to need to go McLynn's book, research his bibliography, and get back to the article. This strikes me as a waste of time. Mix did have the opportunity to visit Juarez. Documented. He had a history of self-invention and fabrication. Documented. Given his peripheral importance to the battle, the effort to verify his participation seems like a lot of effort. Perhaps the author of the article will be so kind as to remove the reference to Mix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have McLynn's book and it is also partially available online. See Synchronism's comment above. This is actually a pretty fascinating question and of course I wouldn't be opposed to putting a bit of additional information for the sake of context here.radek (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase what I said @ radek (talk), Archive 3, the citation that McLynn uses to include Mix in his book would not be acceptable as any sort of historical verification. Since McLynn is accepted here @ Wikipedia as a reliable source, Mix's inclusion in the article will remain. I've actually corresponded w/ one of the leading experts on Mix, and there is not enough information available to pinpoint Mix's location during the battle. I'm not going to THINK about contacting McLynn on this matter--I'm sure he'd be glad to admit that he's made a mistake to an ordinary Wikipedia editor. (-;(-; HOWEVER, I do propose to delete Mix's PICTURE from the article. All the other pictures are scenes from the battle or major players in the battle, or both. Mix's photo is tangential to the main topic, and can be considered off-topic--diverting attention from the main narrative. Tapered (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree about the photo. It's too bad we have to include the dubious material. The fact that it remains does not obligate us to include the photo. The interested reader can click through to the Tom Mix article if they desire more info. Yworo (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The text is sourced. The fact that Tapered doesn't like what the source says is immaterial. We've been through this several times. I also think Mix's photo adds to the article - it's an illustration. Note this is a GA level article which underwent a review. Volunteer Marek 04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have no argument with the fact that Mix's tall tale is sourced, though it does seem to be presented in an unbalanced manner, not disclosing his many other tall tales. It's my contention that the image does not add to the article. I thought such matters were decided by consensus. So far, I see a weak consensus against the image. GA status is neither here nor there, if there is a consensus to remove the image, then it will go. If there is a consensus to keep it, it will stay. There is no hurry, but you're reverted twice in only a few hours. Does that mean you intend to edit war to maintain ownership of the article? Yworo (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Mix's presence at the battle is mentioned by several sources (though of course it *could* be that they're all repeating a rumor started by Mix).
 * As to the photo, well, first, it's a bit silly to start invoking consensus this quickly, and besides, you can't remove well sourced text solely based on just consensus. I think the photo is useful in that it illustrates the participation of non-Mexicans in the battle. It's better than this photo because that one's got two people in it, one of who is not relevant to this battle, and it's better than this photo, which is of low quality. I guess if you want to crop the Viljoen photo and substitute it in here for Mix that'd be fine. Volunteer Marek 06:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looking at it again, that Garibaldi photo is from Mexico, which means it has a pretty good chance to be from around the time of the battle so maybe it is more appropriate, despite the low quality. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Garibaldi photo is good addition, esp given his other military/adventurism history. Tapered (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All good then. One thing; according to Garibaldi's article, it says he got dismissed from the revolutionary army after this battle by Villa for some reason. If you know of any more details or sources on that, it might be worth adding here. Volunteer Marek 02:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Katz, in his book The Life and Times of Pancho Villa says that Villa had a dislike of Garibaldi because Garibaldi claimed all the credit for the capture of Ciudad Juarez. But it is incorrect to say that Villa dismissed Garibaldi.  They were both colonels at the time and neither had the authority to dismiss the other.  Actually, they were both demobilized under the terms of the treaty that ended this phase of the revolution.  Madero agreed to disband his irregular forces in exchange for new elections.  See pages 118-119.Ramon4 (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I got the book at home, so I'll take a look after the holidays. I thought the story sounded sketchy - it might be a good idea to correct the info in the Garibaldi article then: Giuseppe Garibaldi II. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourcing/RSN is irrelevant to the picture. The issue is its value to the article--positive or negative. I vote negative with my tools. If there are any other sources, please list them. Are the other sources the ones mentioned by McLynn, but never identified? Even McLynn's gravitas can't make unnamed sources valid. Tapered (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mix's picture caption lacks citation for his claim. Tapered (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there is relevant information available at the Tom Mix Museum? (Note the last paragraph of that piece, for what it's worth.) See also here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The museum isn't a scholarly place. Based on its website, it seems a sentimental tribute to Mix, perhaps even to his myth. Check my 2 June 2011 entry above. It's impossible to verify Mix's location at the time of the battle. Tapered (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the museum's site isn't a scholarly source or anything like that. I was hoping they might have some of his papers, etc., that might shed light, but it look like they don't. If anything, the pages I cite are consistent with the view that Mix often invented details of his life for publicity purposes. This may have been one of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)