Jump to content

Talk:List of Alamo defenders/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Andrew Kent

One of the "Immortal 32" that fought in the Alamo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.12.53 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why I created this list

I've been working on Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people lately. A number of times, I've come across Find-A-Grave entries where the entry (sometimes the whole text) claims that someone is an "Alamo defender". In fact so often that I started wondering if it was true, and if so, if I could use that information to find their articles on Wikipedia.

So I found a source on the web, and transcribed the information into Wikipedia format (facts aren't copyrightable, formats are). For ultimate benefit, the entries need to be links to the people's articles (if they exist) - but that will have to wait for another day. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the wikilinks that have been added to some of the names, creating redlinks. I don't think that most of those men would meet the notability criteria for their own article (hence them being grouped in a list). I've been doing a lot of research on the Alamo and the Texas Revolution in general, and there is not a lot of information about most of the defenders available. I'd suggest that we just add wikilinks if/when enough information is found to create a decent article on one of them. I am, of course, open to discussion. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agreee that we don't need redlinks. It seems that someone has added just about all the Alamo defenders to Find-A-Grave, which is how I started looking for an on-Wiki list of them - but a listing on Find-A-Grave is neither a reliable source nor an indication of notability. But I'm happy that someone's trying to create bluelinks where they're possible. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe we should keep the wikilinks; which will allow people to keep adding more information about the defenders as more is found out; instead of people redirecting the page. Also; maybe have an whole page like this with sub articles about the defenders. We need more discussion on this; and I suggest that the defenders articles should not be deleted. (Also, a side note; alot of these defenders have places; buildings; schools;cities named after them; and it should be well noted)--Andrewcool (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If there is enough information in reliable sources to create a full article about someone, then it's easy to create one. For many of the defenders, it won't be possible to create a solid article without doing original research, and we don't want to encourage people to delve into those. Karanacs (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think with most of them the information that exists about them can be summarized in the notes section of the defender list itself. See the link on footnote 39 for information about the reinforcements from Gonzales if anyone wants to add more info about that group. I agree that most of the defenders, other than perhaps, Bowie, Crockett and Travis don't really need their own articles.Tanktimus (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could create an article about the Hispanic defender; and native born defenders. All of these defenders have their unique story; and have changed Texas History. --Andrewcool (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that differentiate in that way? If not, we would be creating a content fork that is potentially not of neutral POV. In the books I've read, the defenders are spoken of as a group. Dying in a battle - no matter which battle - is not generally enough to meet the notability guideline; if it was, there could be millions of articles, one for every casualty of every war. Collectively, the Alamo defenders are notable, and multiple books have been written about the group. A few of the Alamo defenders do meet notability guidelines individually, because they have been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. For most of these defenders, very little is known of their lives other than their service at the Alamo, and potentially their birthplace. That is not enough to justify a full article, when that information can be covered here. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed excessive material about one participant

I removed the following text:

Robert E. Cochran, Alamo defender, was born in Pembroke, New Hampshire in 1810. He probably lived in Boston and then in New Orleans before immigrating to Texas in 1835. For a time he conducted business with Ammon Underwood. Cochran took part in the siege of Bexar and later served in the Alamo garrison as a member of Capt. William R. Carey's artillery company. He died in the battle of the Alamo on March 6, 1836. Cochran County is named in his honor. His father was Samuel Martin Cochran and his mother was Sally "Folsom" Cochran. As per the 1810 census, which shows Samuel and Robert in the township of Enfied, Grafton County, NH. Parents: Samuel Martin Cochran (1775 - 1860) Sally Folsom Cochran (1784 - 1867) Robert E. Cochran was a true hero of The Republic Of Texas. His act of bravery and heroism will be remembered forever, as his legacy, a "Defender Of The Alamo" in March 1836. We all pay tribute to his sacrifice and to all the other hero's of the Alamo. As a Cochran family genealogist, I've traced our family lineage connection to the year 1580 to two Cochran brothers, James and John. I'm a member of The Son's Of The Republic of Texas and my qualifying ancestor's Col Samuel S. Lewis,Joseph Sidney Cochran and Martin Baty Cochran. Robert E. Cochran shares many of our Cochran ancestor's back to Waldenus De Cochrane in 1240 Scotland.

by Terry Lee Cochran

The reason is simple: This is information that belongs, if sourced, to a separate article about the person. It distorts the table format of this article. Hopefully the author will discover the text and do something more appropriate. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

James Gwynne / Joseph Gwinn

I rolled back the addition of some text to the table:

(disputed: Promissary Note signed J. Gwin, believed to be Jos. Gwin (born 1897,KY), husband of Rebecca Mobley, shown on 1830 Lawrence Co., MS census, not James C. Gwynne)http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/9626338/person/-707098238]

First reason is that I don't think ancestry.com qualifies as a reliable source by itself, and besides, it requires a login, so I can't get in to verify where it is sourcing its information from; secondly, it seems likely that Groenemann states that his name is James Gwynne, so we don't have a preponderance of sources in one way or the other. Thirdly, the edit broke formatting. I'm adding the pointer in what I think is a more wikipedia-like fashion. As usual, feel free to edit. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace abbreviations

Karanacs. feedback wanted before I continue with Birthplace abbreviations. I did the substitution on the few Bexar entries.

Do you think the template in its own section above the table is OK?
Should we leave it alone and not do abbreviations?
We can collapse both abbreviations sections, but the purple beside each entry is not something I have figured out how to change.

Let's get this set at the beginning, either way. The format for the abbreviations wasn't my invention. It's been used on filmographies for studio listings. But I must say, the abbreviation template (if you can call it that) is a convoluted pain to set it up and to get it to break in the right places (look at it in the edit window). It's OK, as long as there are not a lot of changes over time. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also Ian Rose, if you have a moment to look at the these abbreviations and offer some advice on how this would affect taking this to FLC. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of abbreviations. I think that is going to make it too difficult to read for people who aren't that familiar with US states. Also, from what I remember of FLC, it's frowned on to have content be minimized in a section. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you feel the same way about the military abbreviations? — Maile (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the military abbreviations make more sense. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, we'll leave the military abbreviations. I'm somewhat relieved not to have the state abbreviations. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, only just had a chance to respond -- I also think best to avoid state abbreviations if feasible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Table format

Long-term list overhaul in process. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, the table column for Notes has gotten out of hand. People are putting mini-biographies in there, which I don't think is supposed to happen in table format. I reformatted three of them to drop the prose into the Footnote section. Do you have an opinion, or other solution? — Maile (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, you are right, this is gotten way out of hand. I intended the notes column to be only for linking the families together, and I believe that's how it passed FLC. I support removing all the extra content. Karanacs (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs, looks like it never got as far as FLC. But since we are of like minds on this list, I'll do some work on it here and there. Maybe by the time we get to the tail end of the Revolution articles, this one will be ready to present at FLC. For one thing, it needs reformatting per WP:DTT. Long term project, maybe. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it was the other one that went to FLC. I was obviously gone way too long ;) Karanacs (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Company column

I am eliminating the "Company" column in the table. There are a lot of iffy entries on there, many of which are not verifiable. Who anybody was with tends to differ if there is more than one source on the individual. It won't pass FLC standards with that column intact. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow, it's looking so much better!! I support removing the Company column. I've been trying to think of ways to reduce the footnote volume.
  • Do you think it would be okay to get rid of the footnotes about the ones who survived (i.e., courier), as that information is presented in more detail at List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo? I could support having a column for "Date left the Alamo" if we want to include the information in the table.
  • I wonder if it would make sense to add a "Notable for" or "Legacy" column (sorry, my brain isn't working well right now) that would list information about the county named for them, only body buried, etc. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Great minds think alike - yes to removing the footnotes for the survivors. Ditto for the dates left the Alamo column. Notable/Legacy column makes sense also - I have the feeling that was your original intent on the Notes column, but things evolved into a lot of trivia. Let me think on this. If you want to jump ahead of me and edit, go ahead. So far, the byte size of this has been reduced by about 35%, which is good - difficult to edit via Firefox in its original size. I have a couple of more suggestions:
  • Birthbdates - for consistency, just use the year.
  • Ranks - need to go with abbrevitions, maybe even with a key at the top (or not):
Key to Rank abbreviations
Gen General Maj Major Col. Colonel Lt. Lieutenant
Capt. Captain QM Quartermaster Sgt. Sergeant Pvt. Private
What if we just changed "Status" to be "killed" OR the date they left the Alamo? I'll go ahead and make some of the other changes. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Good idea on the Status column. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The two days it took on the first go-through for the Notes column was in part because the Handbook of Texas moved its URL a couple of times since those links were put there. They were dead links. So, that puts us one step up for the FLC process, all the links are up to date and formatted according to WP templates. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


I've made a first pass at some of these changes, including adding a legacy column. I haven't decided what I think of that yet - what do you think? Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Boy, you've done some good clean-up there. I see we are down to only 7 footnotes. The legacy column is fine, if we can keep control of it until this passes FL. My concern is good faith editors who want to help out, and everything we cleaned out ends up right back there. Any ideas on how to control it? — Maile (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The more polished it looks, the less intervention it generally needs. Once we get a good lede together, that will help. Karanacs (talk)
Then unless you have something else in mind, would you be willing that we put our combined efforts on this and concentrate on getting it to FLC? Up to you, but I'm more likely to be able to make substantive contributions to this in the short term. I see by editing the Battle of San Jacinto, that particular article is going to take a lot more reading and effort from me.— Maile (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I can get Lindley's book from the library this weekend to check for comprehensiveness. Let me know what you want me to read for the San Jac article, too. I'm happy to share the research. Karanacs (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I posted a progress note on the article's talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Karanacs (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To-dos

  • Moses Rose inclusion???
Yes. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I never finished looking through Lindley's book in detail; my notes say pp 54-66 have further information.
Lindley's book is not available through my library. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Bonham left and came back; do we want to mention that here (currently in a footnote), or should we just make his article decent? Notes say John Cain did the same
Bonham, ok to remove the footnote and defer to his article. Do we know who all the couriers are to make a sublist somewhere? — Maile (talk)
Cain - we really should have a separate article on the Gonzales Ranging Company, but I don't find enough sourcing. — Maile (talk)
  • Keep city/county information or just go to state? I think it's important for Bexar residents, but for the rest I'm undecided
As for state, I prefer we go to abbreviations. Anything outside of Texas, we only need the state or country. Inside Texas, I think it's important to narrow it down to location. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Should we mention the men who left as couriers and served/died at other battles?
I support that. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Do we also mention Juana Alsbury, significant as a source of what happened inside the Alamo? — Maile (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)  Done Done. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Who burned the bodies?

Working on a lead. I have read the Francisco Antonio Ruiz account of the burning of the bodies. (Matovina (1995), pp. 43-44). I have also read a (google books online) troubling rebuttal from Lindley's Alamo Traces (pp. 277-282) wherein he claims a man named Francisco Flores (who is that?) was the alcalde, not Ruiz, and that Ruiz wasn't even there and Ruiz might have just been repeating a story he heard somewhere. Karanacs, I don't have Lindley's book, but I've been reading the pages available through Google Books. Not taking sides on this, but Lindley seems to be trying too hard to convince the reader. On the other hand, is it possible Ruiz was really making it up? And who was Francisco Flores? Would appreciate your feedback. Stuff like this hurts my head.— Maile (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been a few years since I've read Lindley's book (I'll grab it from the library again tomorrow), but I remember being skeptical of that information. To my knowledge, his theory on the alcalde hasn't been accepted by other historians yet. There is widespread agreement that the bodies were burned, in three different locations, on the orders of Mexican troops. Who exactly gave the order and who exactly carried it out, I don't know. I think that's a level of detail we don't need to delve into. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

James C. Neill

I've added James C. Neill as a survivor. He is not in sources I see of defenders/survivors of the battle, possibly because he left February 11 before Santa Anna's troops arrived on February 23. However, we have other people on this list who left before the Mexican army arrived. And that comes from sources that consider them survivors. I figure we either add Neill, or we eliminate the others. And what is the cut-off date for someone to be considered a survivor? Is it Feb 23, or the date the battle commenced? The Gonzales Ranging Company managed to get inside on Feb 24, so is that the cut-off date, or the 25th? Input, please. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I think we ought to use February 23rd, and include those who were outside the walls in the vicinity of Bexar when the Mexican army arrived. That means Neill wouldn't count, because he had left the Bexar region on the 11th, but would include Dimmitt, etc. Karanacs (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me. I think we need to note that date in the lead. It would also eliminate Desauque and Highsmith. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sync with List of Texian survivors

I believe one thing they will look for at FLC is if this list is in sync with the FL List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. Therefore, here are some we need to resolve:

Survivors on the defenders list, but not the survivors list

  • Horace Alsbury
  • Jesse B. Badgett
  • Salvador Flores
  • John Johnson
  • William P. Johnson
  • Gerald Navan
  • James C. Neill

Also, Sam (either Bowie's slave or Almonte's cook) is on the survivors list, but not on the defenders list.

On defenders list, but notes on survivors list cast doubt if they were really there

Anything else you can think of? — Maile (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sam wasn't a defender; sources agree he didn't participate in the fighting, even if they aren't sure of much else about him. Karanacs (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Corrections that need to be made, per Lindley

I'm adding notes from Lindley here first. All of this is an analysis of Amelia Williams's research, which he is absolutely scathing about. p 68, he describes her study as "misrepresentation, alteration, and fabrication of data" He does say, on p 66, that he is not going to speak to each and every item on her list, so there may very well be others that are wrong and aren't listed here. Karanacs (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

pp 67- 68 - in 1941, Williams admitted in a letter that "I cannot vouch for all the names on my list being accurate" and she refused to allow the list to be printed in the Texas Almanac

p 68 "the official Alamo honor roll of defenders is flawed"

p 37 - Williams's study published in SWHQ in 1930s and is "probably the most cited secondary source found in articles and books on the Texian Alamo"; "historians have considered it to be the definitive investigative work on the exalted event"- "first time a systematic approach had been used in attempting to identify all the men who had died at the alamo"

this study was the basis for the names carved on the cenotaph in 1936

p 39 - her list was basis for gronemans book "Alamo Defenders" that we use as a source. Groneman wrote most of the Handbook of Texas entries on defenders too, again based on this source, so beware. Todish used it too

pp 40 - 41 -> Walter Lord had bad things to say about her thesis too, while writing A Time to Stand. he said she cited a novel for information on one man

p 41 other historians also found issues

defenders to add

  •  Done p 63 - Thompson, unknown first name
  •  Done p 62 - J.B. Bowman (first name, birthplace and year all unknown); p 79 - he might be James H. Bowman instead
  •  Done p 59 Ross McClelland , "a litle Irishman"

 Question: On Seguin's people, please check me how I handled it in the Notes referencing.

  • p 94 List of Tejanos who were not part of Bexar garrison but were part of Seguin's volunteers and were in the Alamo on Feb 23:
Seguin
 Done Antonio Menchaca
 Done Ambrosio Rodriguez
 Done Eduardo Ramirez
 Done Pedro Herrera
 Done Manuel Flores
 Done Simon Arreola
 Done Cesario Carmona
 Done Vicente Zepeda
 Done Jose Maria Arocha
 Done(first name unknown) Silvero
 Done Matias Curvier (p 101 = Curvier sent as courier with Juan Seguin on Feb 25)
  • p 134 -
 Done Antonio Manchaca
 Done Jose Maria Arrocha
 Done Ambrosio Rodriguez
 Done Pedro Herrera
 Done Lucio Enriques
 Done Simon Arrerlo
 Done Cesario Carmona
 Done Ignacio Gurrea
 Done Vicente Zepeda
 Done Manuel Flores were ALL in the Alamo at start of siege and all left during/after when Seguin did; in 1902, Enrique Esparza said there was a three-day armistice, and most of the Tejanos left during that time


  • p 98 - Gonzales 32 ->
 Done William A. Irwin
 Done John C. Kin
 Done Daniel McCoy, Jr
 Done Frederick E. Elm
 Done Prospect McCoy
 Done John Ballard
 Done James Nash
 Done William Morrison
 Done Joseph Kent
 Done James Gibson
  •  Done p 130 - Samuel G. Bastain, former resident of Louisiana, sent out as a courier to Gonzales to tell reinforcements to hurry, on Feb 29; p 131 - he ran into the Gonzales men and rejoined them to go back to the Alamo; couldn't get back in
  •  Done p 143 - Conrad Eigenauer - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - Stephen Dennison - entered March 4 (was already on the list)
  •  Done p 143 - W.H. Sanders - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - A.A. Petrasweiz - entered March 4; p 166 says his first name was Adolf
  •  Done p 143 - N. Debichi - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - S.W. McNeilly - entered March 4
  • Dine p 143 - Dr. E.F. Mitchusson - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - W.T. Green - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - J.D. Elliott - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - William Hunter - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - L.R. O'Neil - entered March 4
  •  Done p 143 - M.B. Clark - entered March 4 (already on the list)
  • p 144 - more who entered March 4:
 Done Samuel M. Edwards
 Done Thomas R. Jackson (Mar 1 or 4) (was already on the list without the middle initial)
 Done William George (Mar 1 or 4)
 Done Freeman H.K. Day (Mar 1 or 4) (already on the list)
 Done Guadalupe Rodriquez
 Done George Olamio
 Done Francis H. Gray

Changes to make

  •  Done p 51 - no evidence that desauque left the Alamo; he was likely still there
  •  Done p 51 - John was either black or Indian; don't need to mention the slave part - that was likely based on a novel Williams read
  •  Done p 64 - Robert Brown was not a courier
  •  Done p 66 - Jonathan Lindley - no proof his middle initial was L. The year of birth has zero documentation. Came from either Illinois or Tennessee
  •  Done p 90 - use this for Luciano Pacheco instead of the primary source. Sent out of the Alamo in Feb 23 by Juan Seguin to fetch a trunk from Seguin's home. Couldn't get back to the Alamo. No biogrpahical info listed (assume this means I remove birthdate and birthplace).
  •  Done Smither mentioned p 91
  • p 133 - this says that Highsmith reentered the Alamo with Martin and Smith on Mar 1, then was sent out as a courier later that day
 Question: Which Smith?
  • p 143 - these men were part of the relief force that entered on Mar 4:
 Done George Andrews entered the Alamo,
 Done Robert B. Moore,
 Done Thomas P. Hutchinson,
 Done James Holloway,
 Done Henry Thomas,
 Done William Howell,
 Done John Spratt,
 Done henry Courtman,
 Done :W.A. Moore
 Done Thomas H. Roberts,
  • p 144 - either part of relief on March 1 or on March 4:
 Done George Kimbell
 Done James Taylor
 Done Edward Taylor
 Done William Taylor
 Done Andrew J. Kent
 Done Wash Cottle
 Done Jacob Darst
 Done Galba Fuqua
 Done John Gaston
 Done James George
  • p144 - likely part of March 4 relief -
 Done Juan Abamillo
 Done Damacio Jimenez (listed as Damacio Ximenes)
 Done Juan A. Badillo
 Done Andres Nava
 Done Carlos Espalier
 Done Edward Mcafferty
 Done Edwin T. Mitchell

people to remove

  •  Done pp 59-60 - Johnny Kellogg; Benjamin Kellogg fought in the siege of Bexar who was verified alive in Aug/Sep 1836; his son John was born in fall 1836 and named for an uncle, John Gaston, who did die
  •  Done p 61 - Jerry Day; Lindley found proof he was alive Oct 26, 1836
  •  Done p 61 - Isaac Robinson - actually killed by Indians in 1838
  •  Done pp 61-62 - James Hannum - died Dec 1835
  •  Done p 62 - Jesse Bowman - there was a J.B. Bowman on the first Alamo memorial in 1881, but Williams' sources for naming him "Jesse B" don't support that name
  •  Done pp 62-63 - Jesse G. Thompson - fought in San Jacinto
  •  Done p 63 - George Brown - no evidence to support his inclusion
  •  Done p 64 - James Browne - Williams's sources don't support
  •  Done p 65 - Charles Clark - actually died at Goliad
  • Note: Should we include a section at the bottom that says "these are people on the monument who later evidence has shown weren't there?" I think if we don't people will be continually trying to enter these people in. 01:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done, I put it at the top. — Maile (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

minus Removed p 227 - Lindley is adamant that Moses Rose is a myth. He thinks it is most likely that Louis Rose of Nacogdoches tried to enter the Alamo with the March 4 relief force and was one of the men who was turned back - so he was never actually in the Alamo. Karanacs (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, status

Karanacs, time for your input here. I think I've taken this as far as I can for my sources, except for perhaps a tweak here and there.

  • Lead - I've written it with a focus on the numbers, and what happened to the ashes.
  • Legacy and notes column, I've included details on those who survived. Do you think it's necessary to include notes on anyone else there?
  • Jesse B. Bowman is the only one left with a footnote.

Feel free to edit as you wish. I think we are close to submitting this for either a peer review or FLC. Your thoughts? — Maile (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I got Lindley's book this weekend but haven't had a chance to look at it yet (work is crazy). I am going to try to carve out a few hours this weekend to make sure that there isn't anyone that we missed. I'll look over this at about the same time, if that's okay. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. — Maile (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Anselmo Bergara and Andrew Barcena (aka Andres Barcinas)

I have added Anselmo Bergara and Andrew Barcena (aka Andres Barcinas), p. 45 in Moore's book. These are the two men who entered Gonzales on March 11 and first delivered the news of the Alamo's fall. These are the two men Houston didn't believe and accused of being Mexican spies. According to Moore, both men were part of Seguin's company and had entered the Alamo in February. Bergara had fled when the Mexican troops arrived and was "at large in the countryside near Bexar for thirteen days prior to the Alamo's fall." — Maile (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

They probably also ought to be added to List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More from Lindley, potentially for lead

p 52

Juan Almonte said 250 Texians died at the Alamo

Amelia Williams only included people whose families were granted land; she excluded all on muster lists who did not have land granted. Land grants were issued based on muster rolls or other verification, so all of those on muster rolls should be included

p 57

There wouldn't have been land grants issued if no heirs came forward

  • p 87 - On Feb 23 there were 156 effective Texian troops, at least 14 in the hospital
  • p 123 "A speedy reinforcement of the Alamo would be hampered by the lack of a general officer to coordinate relief activities and by the Texians' delusional belief that two hundred men could hold out against Santa Anna's two thousand soldiers."
  • should we mention Fannin's doomed rescue attempt?
Not sure. This is just a list of the defenders, not what went wrong that the Alamo fell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're just writing an intro to the list. Why would Fannin be in the lead? — Maile (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

p 127 - Capt Albert Martin, Capt John James Tumlinson, John W. Smith, and Seguin left Gonzales with 56 men on Feb 28, intending to rendezvous with Fannin and ride to the Alamo's rescue. Seguin, Antonio Cruz, and Matias Curvier split off at Cibolo to wait for Fannin. Th others kept going toward Bexar

p 130 - Mar 1 - Martin and Smith and 34 men started moving closer to Alamo; others decided to wait for Fannin (incl Kimbell, Andrew Kent, Abe Darst, Albert Fuqua, Wash Cottle, John Gaston, and Edwin T. Mitchell)

p 131 - The Gonzales men prepared to enter the Alamo just before 3 am on March 1; ran into a Mexican patrol and ran for the Alamo; Bastain, a man surnamed Rigault, and 2 others were separated from the group - they ran in the opposite direction. John Ballard also separated and made his way back to the other group; that left 32 who rode into the Alamo that morning - Immortal 32

 Question: Not sure what you're saying about Albert Martin, but he died in the Alamo. P. 4 (Moore) says that Martin and John W. Smith rode back inside the Alamo with Kimble and the Gonzales Immortal 32.— Maile (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

p 134 -Mar 4, there were 50-80 men waiting for Fannin at Cibolo Creek

p 137 on March 2, up to 50 of Fannin's men, mostly part of the NO Greys, left Fannin to go to the Alamo, because some of the men in the Alamo already were former Greys - going to help their friends

p 137 - Bonham entered the Alamo on March 3 (after having been a courier)

p 138 - Seguin likely guided the Greys and the others on Cibolo creek towards Bexar

p 139 - a relief force from Tennessee, known as Gilmore's group, likely joined the men on the Cibolo

p 139 - by March 2 afternoon, there were now 200 effective men in the Alamo. 14 Tejanos had left, 5 couriers gone. 3 couriers + 30 men from Gonzales had been added. This leaves 36 men who arrived and we don't know who they are. Possibly they were the sick. Possibly part of a group under David P. Cummings of Pennsylvania who had left on Feb 14 to survey land for headrights. p 140 - may have come back in on Feb 24 just after the siege started

p 140 on March 3, three Texians sent out to scout for more reinforcements. Crockett likely commanded this little party

p 142 - the three Texians found the combined force of reinforcements that had been on the Cibolo, 20 mi east of the alamo on the Gonzales road. They all thought that Three Legged Willie Williamson was coming soon with reinforcements, but knew that Houston wasn't. Still thought Fannin would join Williamson's force IF Goliad wasn't endangered

p142 - early hours of Mar 4, part of the group made it into the Alamo. Mexican soldiers attacked. About 50 Tex reinforcements made it in p 144 - this was 1/3 of the combined force that was trying to reinforce the Alamo

p 145 - John Smith, the almost last courier, was likely trying to find the rest of the reinforcements; he cont on to Gonzales there were troops waiting in Gonzales, under command of Neill

p 151 - March 8 or 9, John Smith and volunteers he had gathered approached Bexar to reinforce the Texans; didn't know the Alamo had fallen; Mexicans fired upon them and they returned to Gonzales and learned the "fort" had fallen

p 226 - Telegraph and Texas Register list based on John W. Smith and Gerald Navan p 227 - they worked on the list for 3 weeks after the battle, likely drawn from their own memories and interviews with those who might have left or tried to enter. The register list includes F. Desauque, who tried to enter again on March 4 but couldn't and joined Fannin

Karanacs, we need clarification on Desauque. I originally had him as leaving Feb 22 and joining Fannin. Then I removed him when we agreed on the Feb 23 date. But above under "Changes to make", it seems on p. 51 Lindley says Desauque never left, so I put him back. Let me know. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts so far

Here's my thoughts on what you've got so far.

  • For the paragraph based on Almonte's journal, is that the historical analysis of the journal or Almonte's own words. I'm not comfortable citing directly to a primary source. Lindley also mentioned that Almonte used that number (although not the detail in that paragraph), so we could cite to him if we need to.
  • I don't think we need the details of Damacio Jimenez in the lead

I actually had a different vision of the lead. I would have structured it similarly to this:

  • How people got there
    • Mexico besieged the Alamo beginning Feb 23. At the time, there were X number of Texians garrisoned there. Some of the men who were out doing stuff weren't able to re-enter because of Mexican troops; others did.
    • Travis sent letters - lots of letters - asking for reinforcements. Members of the garrison were sent out as couriers to deliver them.
    • Purported amnesty and the Tejanos left too (I think I read somewhere that they were trying to protect their families/property)
    • Volunteers were gathering in Gonzales to try to reinforce the mission. 32 made it in on March 1.
    • Fannin, leader of the other garrison in Texas, attempted to reinforce the mission; made it 2 miles and turned back
    • some of Fannin's men, some of the couriers, and others who wanted to join the effort attempted to reinforce the mission on March 4. Approximately 50 made it inside; the others were turned back by Mexican troops
    • Mexican troops launched an all-out assault on March 6 and killed almost all of the defenders in the Alamo at that time.
  • How many were there?
    • Almonte's numbers
    • Telegraph and Texas Register list compiled
    • Ruiz
    • Military land grants used muster rolls and sworn statements of witnesses. Lindley has some of this, Lack may have more
    • There was an 1881 monument that had a list of names. It burned down. No record of who was on that list. I will have to think on where I saw that information.
    • First comprehensive historical look at the names was Amelia Williams' doctoral dissertation, where she identified 182 names. These were used for the official list on the Alamo Cenotaph erected in 1936
    • Later historians have cast doubts on the accuracy of Williams' list, finding some people on the list who were not defenders and finding other omissions.
    • Research continues to be done and there is likely never going to be a definitive count

Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I encourage you to revise the lead in how you see it. You've pretty much written it here, so why not? You do have a talent for this. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You've taken the lead (hee hee) on this one so I don't want to just jump in. Do you disagree? I didn't know whether to include the burial details, since that only applies to some of them, not all. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hee hee right back at ya. I get what you're saying. But I'm a little burned out after my weekend marathon on this. (that, and at the same time trying to get on track with San Jacinto). I really do think you'd be the better writer on taking it the direction you envision. Just go with your instincts, and it will be fine.— Maile (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
PS. .I do have a problem with specifically naming Williams, or anyone else, as doing a bad job. Maybe she/they did, but I don't feel the lead should be the place to point fingers of incompetence at any one writer. That just doesn't feel right to me at all. However, that said, I double-dog-dare-you to work in the Mr.-Liar-Liar-Pants-On-Fire-Santa-Anna's brag about killing 600 Texans in one battle.— Maile (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You've done a tremendous amount of work here already, so I'll take my turn next as I find some time. If it were one historian taking issue with Williams, I agree with you - then it's just two different perspectives. There are multiple saying that her work was shoddy. I don't want to go into too great of detail in this article, but I think it is important to a) give her specific credit for having done the first systematic survey and b) point out that the list she created has a lot of flaws. Otherwise we're going to spend a lot of time taking out info that well-meaning people are adding in ("because the Alamo says they died there" or "because Amelia Williams (or historian who relied on Williams) said so"). It's an important note in the story of how this list has been created. I forgot about SA's claim. That definitely goes in :) Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, the reason I had Damacio Jimenez in the lead where I had it, was an illustration on why only going by the grants issued is so flawed. How many people didn't have the money to file a claim? Anyway, that's all moot since you're re-writing. And as far as Almonte, that's just what he wrote in his journal. Of those on the Mexican side, I'd put my money on him when it comes to statistics. Based on his 1834 intelligence report about Texas, he was nitpicking about numbers. Yep, you're definitely It. — Maile (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

Karanacs, these are my thoughts on wrapping this up. We disagree on how the lead should be written. And that's OK. But I've written the lead as I feel it should be. If you want it to read as you visualize it, then I'm fine with your re-writing it with your vision. But lacking that, it will stand as is.

  • I really feel that this is the place to tell the reader how the figures were arrived at, and, yes, what happened to the ashes. If we don't tell them here, then where? I don't see any reason to rehash the history before or during the battle of the Alamo. Anyone looking at this list already figured out what the Alamo is and its place in Texas history. But, as I say, you are welcome to write your vision.
  • If we bog this down too much with those kinds of details, we run the risk of a debate at FLC on whether this is really a list or should be classified as an regular article. Then FAC won't want it, because they'll say it's a list.
  • And we definitely disagree on outing Williams specifically. Truly, Amelia Williams was a century ago and I don't think people are going to be tied to her definitions of the list. She's not the only one who has been corrected by subsequent research. I doubt anyone outside of historians even heard of her, and historians would have additional sources.
  • And, by the way, the citation by Almonte's figures is not that Almonte is a primary source. That's a published book written by researchers/authors Jack Jackson and John Wheat analyzing Almonte's papers as a basis for telling his part in history. His papers are not the only sources they used for the book. The publisher gave Almonte co-author credit, but earlier editions only list Jackson and Wheat. I did add the Lindley page to the sourcing, but it says almost identically what Jackson and Wheat say. If you want to write your version, then please do. Right now, this article/list stands with what I personally think should be the lead. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything above taken care of. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Names removed

As previously mentioned on this talk page, the following names were on this list before clean-up to FLC. They have been removed for the following reasons:

  • James Brown - No evidence to support his inclusion. Lindley (2004), p. 64
  • George Brown - No evidence to support his inclusion. Lindley (2004), p. 63
  • Charles Henry Clark - Died at the Goliad massacre. Lindley (2004), p. 65
  • Jerry C. Day - Documents prove he was alive Oct 26, 1836. Lindley (2004), p. 61
  • James Hannum - Reported by Phillip Dimmitt as part of his company at Goliad, died December 14, 1835. Lindley (2004), pp 61-62
  • John Benjamin Kellogg - Several men with similar names, but none were at the Alamo. Lindley (2004), pp 59-60
  • Isaac Robinson - Killed by Indians in 1838. Lindley (2004), p. 64
  • Louis Moses Rose - A myth who was never inside the Alamo. Lindley (2004), p. 227
  • Jesse G. Thompson - Served in the military until May 30, 1836. Lindley (2004), pp 62-63

— Maile (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Welsh defender of the Alamo

Welsh defender of the Alamo - on a visit to the Alamo in 2000 I was struck that by the fact that there was a Welsh flag included in the display of the flags of all the defenders' nations who had fallen - only one Welshman but sadly whose name I do not recall. Therefore I am puzzled that there is no entry for Wales in this list. I do note that the heading is "country of birth" and that may be the issue and that it is possible that the fallen Welshman has been incorporateted into the English category. I am sure that the "Daughters of the Revolution", who oversee the Alamo, would not fly any flag that did not deserve to be included so this seems an issue.--Militaryhistoryman (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to know without a specific name. At the Alamo's list of defenders, they also do not have a listing for Wales. I could offer possible reasons for that, but really don't have a definitive answer. As mentioned in the article, a lot of the defender names on monuments and elsewhere were based on the early 20th century research of Amelia Williams. Subsequent researchers found flaws in her work, and there are names on monuments that should not be there. When Thomas Ricks Lindley published his book in 2003, which would be after your visit, the official lists of names added a few and dropped a few. I also noticed while editing this list, that Lindley's research also managed to correct the birthplace of select individuals. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Marcus Sewell birthplace

I have reverted an unsourced edit that changed Sewell's birthplace to Tennessee. You need a verifiable source that says so. All sourcing provided, including the Alamo itself, says he was born in England. Location of his estate probate only means he lived in Tennessee once. It does not mean he was born there. I would suggest that anyone who has definite sourcing that Sewell was born in Tennessee, or otherwise has questions about how the Alamo lists him, should contact The Alamo Mission itself. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Marcus Sewell

Marcus Sewell's birthplace is discussed in my essay titled WHO WAS MARCUS SEWELL? AN INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY USING TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, AND TEXAS LAND AND GENEALOGICAL RECORDS, published in "Tennessee Ancestors, December 1999. I was drawn to this topic because my g.g.grandfather was the executor of Marcus' estate. I have contacted The Alamo about changing the plaque at The Alamo which could have been accomplished with a monetary donation, which I felt was the State's responsibility. Marcus had no heirs but he did have a brother and the brother's descendant was consulted on this project Histnut (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. What you are trying to link is one of the sources already listed in the article: TAMU. What it says is Some sources say that he was born in England around 1806. He is also identified as being English on a bronze plaque at the Alamo. Other authorities state that Sewell was born in Tennessee. However, the link at the end of that paragraph is to the Handbook of Texas article, which is also one of the sources for the Defenders list here, and says quite definitely that Sewell was born in England. Nothing in the rest of that TAMU/Dewitt article says he was born in Tennessee. It says J. S. McDonald was born in Tennessee years later. And it says the Sewells "resided" in Tennessee at one point, and that his younger brother was born there. But there is nothing in that article that verifies Marcus Sewell was born in Tennessee. Again, probating his estate in Tennessee or Texas does not mean he was born in either. I wish you luck with the Alamo, but I believe they will also require proof. Let us know what you hear from them. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Despallier-Espaliar

I have reverted edits from redlink editor Bertenjos that question the similarity of the two names Charles Despallier born in 1812 in Louisiana and Carlos Espalier born in 1819 in Texas as possibly being the same individual.Edit 1 The discussion on this needs to be here on the talk page. I mistook that the edits were unsourced, but the editor did actually add at the bottom of the page:

  • Dahlqvist, Rasmus (2013). From Martin to Despallier: The Story of a French Colonial Family. North Charleston SC, USA: Eakin Press. ISBN 9781493603251.Edit 2

That source apparently lists Charles Despallier as being born in 1815. Nevertheless, please discuss here first. Please give more details. That these are two different individuals already has four sources, Lindley, Todish, Moore and Groneman. Todish, in fact, makes a distinction between the two. Other than "Note similarity with Charles Despallier. Proven birth date of 1812 recently amended to 1815, increasing the similarity with Carlos Espalier." They could have been relatives, or total strangers, or anything. Please expand here. — Maile (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the ISBN number given above does not show Eakin Press. Both WorldCat, Google Books and Amazon bring this up as CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, which means it is a self-published work. — Maile (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Please also note that March 2014 edits by Bertenjos claimed the two above individuals were second cousins. Same source was used. This information was thoroughly examined in bringing this list to FL, and was eliminated. — Maile (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism reverts

I have reverted the IP user addition of "A Anderson" that lists Lindley as a source. Please re-read Lindley. This is where he is debunking the Amelia Williams claim of a defender named Anderson. Additionally, the Alamo Mission itself does not list a defender by the name of Anderson. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now reverted the addition of several bogus additions, including the name of George Washington, to the list. — Maile (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I have just reverted this same set of names again added by an IP. Same reason for revert. Discuss it here. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Defender information and sourcing

I have now twice reverted changes today from an IP who is changing the spelling of Dillard, based on their family history records. What we have is according to the Alamo's Defenders list, as well as that of other history resources, in this case, historian Bill Groneman's books. Wikipedia does not use family archives as reliable sources, especially when official sources contradict it. I would suggest to the person who wants to correct the spelling of their ancestor's name, that they first contact the Alamo Mission at the link I have provided here. They have access to state muster roll records. I also reverted the same IP changing Christopher Allen Parker to Christopher Allen Dillard. Same issues. The Alamo list shows those two defenders as coming from two different parts of the United States and does not indicate a relationship between the two. .— Maile (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Alamo defenders. 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).

  • 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) 09:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Debich and Petrasweiz

I have reverted the unsourced IP edits changing the spelling of the names Debich and Petrasweiz that also added that they were Polish artillery officers. These changes need verifiable sourcing. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Per the edit that identifies Debich as Napoleon Debicki, who died at Goliad, I am removing him from this list. Per Waymarking "Louis Napoleon Dembinski/Debicki - Goliad, TX - Citizen Memorials on Waymarking.com". www.waymarking.com. Retrieved May 12, 2020., there is a a marker in Goliad City Park that honors this man as one of the dead from the Goliad Massacre. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I am also removing Adolf Pietrasiewicz (As Adolph Petrussewicz) as having died in the Goliad Massacre, per Texas State Legislature House Resolution 1230 . — Maile (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Title Is Itself False, Biased, and Openly Racist

You do realize the Texas Revolution army was itself the aggressor, beginning the war?

You do realize also most of the colonists and most of the militia at the Alamo were outsiders? Most had been in Texas less than a year? Crockett and his men only a few weeks.

They, and those arriving after the declaration, were also illegal immigrants under the law, and traitors to Mexico similar to Confederate traitors in rebellion against the US.

You are calling the Alamo insurgents "defenders" based on race, based on white skin alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.29.18 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

source issue

Footnote 3: "Davis (2004), p. 143"... No such book listed in section "References".--Jarodalien (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Jarodalien Thanks! Luckily, I found I'd also used Davis one of the sources for the Runaway Scrape, and it is indeed p. 143 that applies where it's been noted in this article. Fortunately, that Davis book is accessible via its link to the Internet Archive, so people can read that themselves. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Maile66, I have another question: Tapley Holland, "First to cross over the line in the sand", What's this mean? Did he suggest any advance or compromise?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Jarodalien This refers to one of the most famous legends of the Alamo, one that is in just about every book or movie about the battle. As it is told, Colonel William B. Travis gathered all the men together and told them that they were greatly outnumbered by the Mexican army. Travis then drew a line in the sand with his sword, and said that any who would stay and fight with him should cross over the line. Those who did not do so, would be allowed to leave without anything bad said about them. Supposedly, only one man declined to cross over. That's the line in the sand. — Maile (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Maile66 Hiram James Williamson is a "SMA", there's no key for this abbreviation. Also just want make sure: "James Tylee, James", so this one really named "James James Tylee"?--Jarodalien (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Jarodalien Very good on your part. Both were typos of a sort, and corrected now. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, translation done here.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Very interesting. Glad to see that, thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The Dubious Samuel G. Bastian

Much of the information in this list/article comes from Samuel G. Bastian, who was supposedly sent out as a courier from the Alamo to Gonzales on February 29. In 1891, Bastian gave an interview to the Philadelphia Press about his experiences. John Henry Brown, who died in 1895, published lengthy excerpts from this interview in his book, Indian Wars and Pioneers of Texas. Brown believed Bastian to be a total fraud. He called the Press piece "a real or pretended interview with as vile an imposter as ever appeared in historic matters." Brown repeatedly points to parts of Bastian's story that he considers to be impossible and proof that Bastian was lying his head off. Amelia Williams found no evidence that any man named Bastian was in the Texian army in 1836. To my knowledge, no one else has, either. Nevertheless, Thomas Lindley repeatedly uses Bastian as an eyewitness, citing Brown, but taking everything Bastian said at face value. Lindley never states that the very source he was using to advance Bastian's story considered him to be an imposter and a fraud. Considering that Lindley is constantly hammering at and finding fault with the research methodology of others - the main theme of his Alamo Traces: New Evidence and New Conclusions is that he is the first Alamo historian who has researched things properly - I find this to be highly hypocritical. Unfortunately, there's a lot of post-Lindley work on Alamo defenders that has followed his lead, using Bastian as a source, but these people are getting their information on Bastian from Lindley, not Brown.

I know that as a researcher, I am skeptical of someone who appears out of nowhere 60 years after the fact and tells stories about acts of heroism they did and monumental events they witnessed and participated in. Brown didn't buy what Bastian was selling, and neither did Williams. Lindley did, but he didn't offer any reason for it. Lindley didn't weigh the pros and cons of why Bastian should or should not be believed. He didn't offer any evidence that Bastian was who he said he was. If Lindley had caught Williams or anyone else doing what he did, he would have devoted an entire chapter to what a crock historian they were.

The reason Bastian matters so much to this list is that Lindley's reliance on him affects not only his own entry (which is currently misspelled as Bastain), but also his theory that up to 53(!) men entered the Alamo on March 4. Most of these men are otherwise known Alamo defenders, but some aren't. The only route for calling them Alamo defenders is via this March 4 reinforcement group that Bastian attested to. So far, I've found 28 entries on this list that are affected. All are candidates to have their entry dates changed, and 6 are candidates for removal.

I'm making this post for discussion. I don't propose to act on it now. DavoLWS (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Featured list: List of Alamo defenders. I don't know the answer. But I do know that anybody whose family dates back to 19th century Texas, likely has a family lore of an ancestor at the Alamo. And quite often, that family lore includes the ancestor having been a courier who just happened to be out delivering a message when the attack happened. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Gonzales Mounted Ranger Company

The table currently includes John Ballard, Frederick C. Elm, William Morrison, and James Nash as members of the Gonzales Mounted Ranger Company who were killed at the Alamo. The reference given is Lindley, p. 98. Lindley does not, however, assert that these men ever went to the Alamo or were killed there. Their names simply appear on a roll of men who mustered in Gonzales on 23 February. That does not mean they subsequently went to San Antonio and entered the Alamo on 1 March, or that they died in battle on 6 March. Lindley does not claim or imply any of this concerning them. If there is a source that asserts these four men entered the Alamo and were killed in battle, it should be added, and Lindley should be removed. If not, the names themselves should be removed. DavoLWS (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The Lindley research on this was done by @Karanacs: who has been only semi-active in recent years, but left a very detailed trail on the sourcing she used. Her records on the research can be found at Talk:List of Alamo defenders/Archive 1#Corrections that need to be made, per Lindley. Please scroll down to where she lists defenders to add under p 98 - Gonzales 32. It would be nice to have a second opinion besides what you provide. As you know, who was - and wasn't - at the Alamo can differ from source to source. — Maile (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I looked at the part you asked me to, but don't know what I was supposed to see. It just says some names were added. I don't see any sourcing at all, much less "a very detailed trail." Back to the article, the notes for Ballard, Elm, Morrison, and Nash simply cite "Lindley, p. 98." I don't know whether you have a copy of Lindley, but page 98 simply gives a list of 22 men who joined the Gonzales Ranging Company on February 23. That's it. Since this article is meant to be a list of Alamo defenders, not a list of members of the Gonzales Ranging Company, the list on page 98 of Lindley is not all that relevant. I actually just noticed a fifth name on that list who doesn't appear in any source as an Alamo defender: William A. Irwin. Again, the only sourcing in the table for him is "Lindley, p. 98."
I don't think a second opinion should be necessary to agree that p. 98 of Lindley is not about Alamo defenders, but is about the Gonzales Ranging Company. I don't know whether this other person, Karancacs, misunderstood what the list is, but it's there for anyone to read: "The roll identifies twenty-two men as being mustered on February 23 by Byrd Lockhart. Despite the date, most of the men probably joined the unit between February 8 and 23, 1836. The men were..." Not a word is said about going to the Alamo, let alone dying in battle there. In a subsequent chapter, Lindley even goes on to say that not all of the Gonzales Rangers made it to the Alamo. He specifically says on page 131 that Ballard [b]did not[/b] ride into the Alamo on March 1 with (Albert) Martin and (John W.) Smith. He mentions Ballard again on page 133 on March 2, still not inside the Alamo, and that's the last that's written of him. For the other four names I gave, the last written of them is page 98. I repeat: there's no reason to believe that those five men were ever at the Alamo. The only source for their names, which is Lindley, does not claim that they were. DavoLWS (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I only meant for you to know where Karanacs posted her sources/notes. She was the primary researcher. Beyond that, I really have no comment. Perhaps others would like to weigh in here, but I'm not sure who is watching this. The only associated project I know that is active is WT:MILHIST. You might be more successful in getting feedback by posting a thread there. That is a really active project. But beyond that, I don't know. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
In that case, the addition of those five names - John Ballard, Frederick C. Elm, William A. Irwin, William Morrison, and James Nash - should be considered poorly sourced and/or original research. They don't appear on Gray's list, the Telegraph list, or any other contemporary list of men who died at the Alamo. No published 19th, 20th, or 21st century history of the Alamo claims that these men died defending the Alamo, or that they even were there at all. I am removing them. DavoLWS (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've found and attached the handwritten copy of the muster roll that was Lindley's source.
http://www.txgenweb.org/records/muster/311133-01.pdf
It has 22 names. The word "Killed" is written or ditto'ed next to 14. The eight names that are missing such an indication are William A. Irwin, Daniel McCoy Jr., Frederick E. Elm, Prospect McCoy, John Ballard, James Nash, William Morrison, and David Kent. I've checked all of my sources for David Kent and the two McCoys and have found nothing for them, so I'm removing them from the article as well. (The article actually didn't have David Kent, but it had Jospeh Kent, member of the Gonzales rangers, Lindley, p.98, etc. so I assume a previous editor typed the incorrect first name. Whether it's David Kent or Joseph Kent, there's no record of such a person being at the Alamo.) DavoLWS (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
DavoLWS thank you for continuing to log here what you are doing and why. It's important to have this for future referenceing. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I removed James Gibson. Lindley presents a list of 22 men whose names are on a muster roll of the Gonzales Ranging Company taken on 2/23/1836. He then writes, "Joseph Kent and James Gibson, while not listed, also appear to have been members of the unit." But as has already been shown above, Lindley never claims that everyone in this unit went to the Alamo. Some did and some did not. There is no evidence, either in Lindley or anywhere else, that James Gibson did. DavoLWS (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I removed John C. Kin[g]. There was no John C. King. There was a John G. King, who did sign up for the Gonzales Ranging Company, but when the company left to go to the Alamo, his son, William, went in his place. John G. King died in 1856. Lindley, who erred in transcribing John's middle initial as "C," did not claim he went to the Alamo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoLWS (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing "Entered March 4" from the Legacy and Notes column

I'm proposing that all instances of "Entered March 4" be removed from the Legacy and Notes column. The idea of a March 4 reinforcement of the Alamo is a novel theory first proposed by Lindley in 2004. The validity of this theory is debatable. What I don't believe is debatable is that Lindley himself doesn't claim to know how many people were in this March 4 reinforcement, or who they were. He proposed 53 people who may have taken part, but states his list "may contain a few errors." He also states that "perhaps" only about 1/3 of these men actually did enter the Alamo on March 4; the rest were unable to break through the siege and headed back toward Gonzales. Moreover, Lindley's method of compiling this list of names is staggeringly awful. For example, he includes eight men who were known to be in the Alamo in January 1836 in the March 4 reinforcement simply on the basis that their names aren't on the Alamo voting roll taken on February 1. To Lindley, that doesn't mean "they didn't vote," it means "they weren't there; they must have left and come back later." When did they come back? March 4, for some reason (?!). And to make it worse, one of them, Robert Moore, did vote on Feb. 1, but Lindley transcribed his name as "Moon" instead of Moore. His whole list is error-ridden like this, including men who didn't die in 1836, and men who died at Goliad.

I'm removing the March 4 note from Robert Moore now and am going to remove it as I go for others where I can disprove it. I think the most responsible thing to do is remove it from all entries, but I will wait for discussion before going that far. DavoLWS (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Alamo_defenders/Archive_1&oldid=1178359582"