Talk:Gregorio Cortez

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mdcaron, Lindsey2478, Lhorne2024, ZionMoore, Zac.israel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New to sections
Just started this but I need a little more time.--Rockero 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway you would agree to remove the word bandit from the article? Also is there really a need to put this under the American outlaw category?  Gregorio Cortez's contributions to civil rights and American society can always be argued, and far too much of his story is mere legend, but I really doubt he was ever a criminal.  The word "bandit" just seems to be brought up far too many times in articles concerning "bad" mexican americans.  Great job on everything else though.Mosquito-001 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a preferable option would be to write the social bandit article, which would explain how conquered people are marginalized legally, basically making any action on their part in their favor an illegal act, and that many social bandits become folk heroes as symbols of resistance. Then we could link to that article instead of Outlaw. How are you Mosquito?--Rockero 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This article should mention the Bob Marley song.

Am I missing something? I have read the "incident" section several times in two days and for the life of me I can not see why the sheriff needed to open fire. Could not figure it out in the movie either. Is it me, or is that section very unclear? Jm546 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

the incident
In this section, I'm confused. It says "in which Cortez was supposedly asked if he had recently acquired a caballo, or a stallion, and Cortez answered he had acquired a yegua, or a mare, a word which the deputy did not understand." However, both Romaldo and Gregorio were there. Whom did the deputy ask? We should clarify.(Kirin-rex (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gregorio Cortez. 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/20060901103453/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/mexican_songs/cortez.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/mexican_songs/cortez.cfm

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) 03:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

SPAN 322 Plan of Revision
Hello Wikipedia, I'm working on revamping this page for a Chicano Literature course at UBC.

Gregorio Cortez Information Box: Add more detail in general. Me and my group have found a supposed picture of Cortez, we will add it if it is legal.

Background Ideas: Give names to parents, family, and any other key characters. Reference Valeriano, Gregorio's son, from "With His Pistol in His Hand" as he gives detail insight to the background of Cortez. More information needed on Gregorio rather than Tómas.

Create another subheading: Background of Political and Social climate of the Border. With this section, we could discuss the landscape, both physically and societally, of life on the border. Could be very important to give readers insight of society that created Gregorio Cortez. Negative beliefs about both groups (Texas Rangers and Mexicans).

The Incident details: Need more description of the event. Take ideas from "With His Pistol in His Hand" and do further research. Also include newspaper reports at the time. ALSO DO NOT AMALGAMATE THE TWO INCIDENTS

Create Subheading: The Battle of Belmont. Include this important battle. Give information from newspapers, reporters, courts, and the officers themselves to give all point of views.

BREAK UP FLIGHT AND CAPTURE into 2 separate subheadings.

Cortez's Flight: Talk about tactics used by Cortez, the number of horses used by him, and the area that he covered.

The Capture Of Gregorio Cortez: Talk about El Teco, the man who told the police of his whereabouts. Talk about different opinions and point of views about the capture.

Add Subheading: Court Proceedings: Talk of money raised by people. Support of both Mexican and American citizens. Give examples of court reports, newspapers, and the problem of translation by the officers.

Prison and Pardon: Talk about Cortez's time in prison; how long he spent there, where they moved him, and his experience/behaviour in the prison system. Also, discuss his pardoning. Give information about the Governer and the beliefs surrounding him.

Post-prison life and Death: Give more information about his efforts in the Mexican Revolution. Also, clarify the cause of death. Talk about how long it supposedly killed him, and do not say that he definitely DID die from poisoning.

Add Subheading: Legacy and Inspiration amongst the Border Mexican community: Talk of how his life inspired Mexicans and what important parts of his life transformed into El Corrido de Gregorio Cortez.

The Legend: Use "With His Pistol in His Hand" and information from the many verses of the border ballad to give insight into how the legend was created and transformed over time. Talk about him representing the average Mexican man, speak of the importance of the sorrel mare, and address the significance of him defending his right with his pistol in his hand.

In Song, Literature, and Film: Describe the songs, literature, and films in more detail. Talk about what they got right and what they got wrong. Talk about the important points each piece of art highlights and discuss how and why these works changed even in the slightest.

Add more references as we go. Pechodor13 and maymolina contributed to this revision plan.

OVERALL CLEAN UP THE PAGE, CLARIFY ERRORS, AND ADD MORE DETAIL TO THE STORY AND LEGEND OF GREGORIO CORTEZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chr66 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SPAN 322 GROUP CONVERSATION
Hey, this is our conversation area for any questions or concerns regarding the article. Looking forward to fixing this article up!

Ideas of references SPAN 322
History of the region

Valerio-Jiménez, O. S., & e-Duke Books Scholarly Collection 2012. (2013;2012;). River of hope: Forging identity and nation in the rio grande borderlands. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Chapter 4 and 6)

Alonzo, A. C. (1998). Tejano legacy: Rancheros and settlers in south texas, 1734-1900 (1st ed.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.(Chapter 4).

Levario, M. A., & Project Muse University Press eBooks. (2012). Militarizing the border: When mexicans became the enemy (1st ed.). College Station: Texas A&M University Press. (Chapter 1)

History of the Cortez's family

Alvear, C. L. (2006). Crossing country and county borders: The cortez family's movement north from northern mexico to south and central texas, 1851–1901

About the Movie

Sunness, S., & YOUNG, R. (1984). The ballad of gregorio cortez: AN INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT YOUNG. Cinéaste, 13(4), 39-40.

Sunness, S. (1984). the ballad of gregorio cortez. Cinéaste, 13(4), 39.

Elitzik, P. (1984). The ballad of gregorio cortez. New York: Cineaste Publishers, Inc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechodor13 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted undiscussed deletion
I reverted this large-scale deletion by User:Bhockey10, as it seems to me rather brusque to say simply that it is "fluff." Please discuss such drastic changes here. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for reaching out, as stated on my talk page, the RV was part of WP:BRD and not done in bad spirit. with large sections lacking citations/ref also per WP:VER Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. My edit summary of rving "fluff" is a shortform reference to WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE. It also include more than suffiecient context stating "removed extensive fluff and info outside of the biographical subject of the article." The Background section was devoid of any mention of the biographical subject and also covered in separate articles such as History of the Texas Ranger Division, History of Texas, Texas-American relations, and others. The background section could be briefly recapped in a properly cited sentence or short paragraph with proper Wikilinks in the “Early Life” section to help establish the era, but a full historical review of geo-political climate in the 50 years before the life Gregorio Cortez is entirely outside the scope of this particular article. WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MOSBIO and WP:BIODD are clear on the issue and how biographical articles should be structured. Essentially it breaks down to a chronologically organized article on the biographical subject. For more influential people, a legacy, in pop culture, or other similar section postmortem impact is appropriate. In addition this article suffers from multiple issues related to WP:NOTESSAY- the current version of the article is largely structured in academic essay format with poor sourcing, WP:NPOV issues, poor inline cites/WP:VER, possible WP:OR, etc...--Bhockey10 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is helpful. I also think there are parts later that have too much detail. But I do think a bit of background is useful, if perhaps integrated differently into the article. As I say, however, this is a work in progress. Your comments are very helpful: the more specific and concrete, the better, as students continue to revise the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi All, as of the current revision (945253803), The background section looks much better than it did 24 hours ago. Thank you all for the hard work on the adjustments! I still think that to better follow the Biography format (WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MOSBIO and WP:BIODD); it could be reduced further and better incorporated into the Early Life section. Something like: "Gregorio Cortez was born during a dynamic time in which... [then get into a brief recap of the regional geopolitical issues during the years of his birth and early life.]" In particular, the first paragraph going over Texas-Mexico history back into the 1820s is still a bit WP:Undue and also Essay-like (WP:NOTESSAY), a common issue noted in WP:STUDENTS: "Wikipedia has its own core content policies, style, and editing structure. The traditional writing assignment of the essay (with its necessary point of view) is not suited for publication here because our encyclopedic style requires a neutral point of view."
 * Many thanks for these helpful comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Review notes
Just a note to say that per a request from jbmurray I'll be posting some review comments in this section. I'll review the article with an eye to what a GA reviewer would say, and if I go beyond what is needed for GA I'll try to make that clear in the comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll start with the body, and do the lead last. This will be in fragments as I am likely to be interrupted this evening. The requirement for prose quality at GA is "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct", which means that if I think the way you've written something could be improved, I won't say so unless there's something definitely wrong or I think I reader could misunderstand it. -- I'll stop there for now; let me know if anything is unclear. Feel free to post responses or disagreements in between the bullets above if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Section title "Background of the Region": a minor point: Wikipedia uses sentence case for section headings so this should be "Background of the region". You might consider just making it "Background".
 * The second paragraph of that section is a bit repetitive and I'm not clear exactly what points it's making. Does the first sentence, about land loss and political access, refer only to Tejanos?  (And is Tejano a modern term, by the way, or was it current then?)  I think it would help to organize this paragraph a bit more linearly.  Currently it reads as though your audience is someone who already knows many of the facts, and you're referring to the facts.  For example, you say Despite the promise of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; Jon will know what the promise is that you refer to, but I don't, unless I click through to the link, which I shouldn't have to do to understand your point.  Make it more directly factual: "The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo promised American citizenship to residents who wanted to stay in Texas, but Tejanos in the lower Rio Grande Valley were relegated to second-class status".  I think perhaps some simple reordering of sentences would help -- it sounds like the information to be conveyed here is that the annexation's consequences were generally negative for Tejanos; they faced racism and were treated as second-class citizens: here are some examples of problems they faced, and here are some of the causes.  And how deeply do we need to go into causes?  Does a reader who wants to learn about Gregorio Cortez care that manifest destiny is behind racism in the region?
 * I'd cut the name of Paredes' book -- it's in the citation. What the reader needs to know is just that Paredes is a scholar of the subject, so I would say that.
 * Américo Paredes pointed out the role of the Texas Rangers division...: verbs like "point out" and "note" imply to the reader that Wikipedia agrees with the sentiment expressed; we should rarely support anything in Wikipedia's voice, so I would use a verb like "argued that" or use "According to Paredes", as you do in the next sentence.
 * Is the third paragraph neutral enough? You cite Utley to say that there was no systematic evidence of persecution, he still calls the Rangers ruthless and brutal.  Are there no scholarly positions more favourable to the Rangers?
 * However, they embodied Anglo-American values: what point is this making?
 * Gregorio Cortez Lira, cowboy, and Mexican-American folk hero was born in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico...: no need for the descriptives -- the reader has some of this from the lead and we can just say "Gregorio Cortez Lira was born in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico...". I'd give his birthdate at this point.
 * You need a citation for the sentences about his birth and wives.
 * A misunderstanding of semantics, and the violence which ensues, lies at the core of the true story of Gregorio Cortez and constitutes the principal incident: I think you could cut this -- I wouldn't fail GA for this, but it strays from a simple account of the facts. I think "true story" is unnecessary, and "core" and "principal incident" are repetitive.
 * Isn't that paragraph told partly backwards? First we get a summary sentence, then we're told what the killings were about, then we find out what the trade was about.  Then it starts to move forward in time with Morris's visit.  I think the reader would find it easier to follow if you simply gave the facts in chronological order.  And do we need to add "According to Paredes"?  We should give names inline when there are controversies or when it's an opinion, but if Paredes' research is uncontroversial we can let the reader check the citation if they want the details.
 * who was allegedly an expert on the Mexican language: surely just "who could speak Spanish"?
 * Missing a couple of citations at the eend of paragraphs in this section.
 * Reading through the rest of the "Incident" section, I see more repetition and out-of-sequence narration -- the second paragraph, for example, starts by saying what had happened before the visit to Cortez. I'd put all of this in plain chronological order.
 * Whose narration is it that we're reading? Choate's?  Cortez's own story?  It's told as if it were true but for a story like this the reader should be very clear on whose authority it rests.
 * In one or two places the language veers to the dramatic: "For, in truth,..."; "it was in this way"; "stood at the door, where his brother had stood". I'd remove this and leave the drama to the facts.