Talk:Spanish missions in California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents
Archive
Archives

Previous discussions, which have been archived:


[edit] Why the prehistory of the native American peoples?

Is it really appropriate here to have a paragraph on the prehistory of the native peoples of America? It seems to me it makes as much sense as presenting the prehistoric origins of the Spanish people who colonized the area. 71.163.37.245 (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Gone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This information is pertinent from an anthropological standpoint toward understanding the effects that the Spanish occupation had on the indigenous population; in some of the more developed articles the specific culture of the local peoples is dicussed. If you can cite information from published sources as to why this is not relevant to the topic then I suggest you do so before simply reverting the article to a previous flawed version. Mdhennessey (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A discussion of the culture of the local peoples AT THE TIME OF THE MISSIONS or shortly before, might very well be relevant towards that understanding you raise. The prehistoric origins of the people--tens of thousands of years earlier, and by what now-geologically-defunct means--provides no such understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.37.245 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 71.163.37.245 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
What does your little anthropology lesson have to do with the rest of the article? If you're trying to make some kind of point, you're not doing it very well. It's a standalone statement with no stated connection to the rest of the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, now there IS a cited reference that connects the section to "to the rest of the article." And again, if you intend to remove information from these articles in the future I ask that you do so based only on publiished sources (per WP guidelines), as you so far have provided none. Mdhennessey (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your emendation here, and the reference you cite. Unless you're prepared to develop this little thesis (which should probably have a separate article), your statement still seems one thrown in and barely related to the article. I suspect two things: first, you need to show as widely as possible that you know this point you're making, and second, you have a--probably subconscious--agenda. It sounds like you wish to prove with scientific certainty that the arrival of Christian Europeans was the biggest catastrophe imaginable for the native peoples of California. But a mere statement that these people arrived by what land bridge, from where, how many thousands of years ago, does nothing towards that agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.37.245 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 71.163.37.245 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
I don't need a "published source" to justify removal of anything, you have to provide a published source that supports a reason for keeping it. So far, I'm not seeing it. But I'll let the original questioner weigh into this one before doing anything else with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree and view continued removal of this material as vandalism, plus I question what point you are trying to make in this regard, especially given the fact that both you and the original anon poster have virtually zero edits toward this article save for the deletion of this section. And by the way, phrases such as "your little anthropology lesson" not only reveal an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the subject, they also border on incivility. Mdhennessey (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the phrase reveals an "appalling lack of knowledge on the subject." I am sure of what his point is: your paragraph has such remote, tenuous, far-fetched relevance to the article as to be virtually irrelevant. It just seems a mere tangent--designed to show the world how much you know, and/or to promote your agenda. 71.163.37.245 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
By the way, if by "original anon poster" you mean me, I've signed these comments with my real name--so I'm hardly anon. And I haven't removed anything; I've only commented, with the fairly obvious observation that your paragraph adds nothing to the subject of the article. 71.163.37.245 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
You own it now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Mdhennessey (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ownership is against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I had taken your previous comment as a good-faith indication on your part that this issue was resolved. Thanks for clarifying your position. Mdhennessey (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You are quick to cite rules when they serve your purpose, and quick to ignore those that might go against your agenda on these pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, original questioner here. As I suggested before, it seems to me that the prehistoric origins of the indigenous peoples have no more relevance to the subject of this article than would the prehistoric origins of the Spanish settlers. It sounds like someone just wants to try to stick this information in, at as many places as he can. The place for a paragraph--or two, or three, or twenty--on the origins of the native peoples of the Americas is an article on the origins of the native peoples of the Americas.
Another parallel here. Suppose someone, noting that adobe was used in building these missions, might discuss adobe--or might discuss the geology of the minerals that make up adobe. Certainly, the relevance of that would be stretching reason to the breaking point. The paragraph, which has found its way into every one of the articles on individual Spanish missions in California (and other articles, too), really does not belong here. I'm not taking issue with the content of the paragraph (although I understand there are other theories). It just doesn't make sense to have it here. 71.163.37.245 (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Virtually all of the Precontact section belongs in some other article. You have not discussed the ethnic prehistory of the Spanish settlers. You have not elaborated on how the Spanish themselves came to the Catholicism they brought to the New World. You have not discussed how the Spanish made their voyages. A few brief comments on who the native peoples were AT THE TIME OF THE MISSIONS might be relevant. Such a detailed discussion, going back to land bridges 13,000 years ago, is not. 71.163.37.245 (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

All of this is specious reasoning at best. The origins of the California natives, and how they lived prior to European contact, is highly pertinent to the topic of the missions (and given only minimal treatment in these articles), and is the subject of much scholarly research and writing. And to suggest that "A few brief comments on who the native peoples were AT THE TIME OF THE MISSIONS might be relevant" is absolutely ludicrous and demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the subject matter. I can only assume that it is you, who have a total of ZERO edits to these articles prior to this attempt to remove the section in question, are the one with the agenda. I suggest that you read up on this subject and bring verifiable source material in support of your opinions to bear on this discussion. Mdhennessey (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is relevant at all, you haven't shown it in your paragraph. As it stands, it's a completely unconnected statement just stuck in. It seems to me, it's up to you to explain yourself. You're right, by the way, I have not edited these articles, or hardly any at all (mainly, I've made grammar and usage fixes). That should not stand as a qualification or disqualification to ask the question, "What does this have to do with the subject of the article?" To suggest that it does is only an ad hominem argument (presumably because you can't come up with a valid one). Maybe you're just so much wiser than anybody else, but if you have a thing to say, you need to say it. If your paragraph is relevant to the article, then show us how.
Let me make another analogy. Someone fills an article with unsourced statements that also seem farfetched. Someone else asks, hey, are you sure about all this--where did you get it? The original writer protests, if we think he's wrong, provide sources to prove it.
No! It's up to the original writer to provide the sources.
To discuss the lives of the indigenous peoples, and their own beliefs and religious practices and traditions at the time of the establishment of the missions, and then to discuss how the missions affected them would be relevant. Crossing the land bridge 13,000 years ago, and archaeological evidence of those times, has zero relevance. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
Your analogy is pointless; the articles are not filled with unsourced statements, and just because you don't like the source or happen to personally agree with the conclusion doesn't make it farfetched. If you know of opposing sources that would merit the removal of the material, you haven't cited them. You speak of having an agenda, and I believe you are the one with the agenda (concious or otherwise); that you state, "It sounds like you wish to prove with scientific certainty that the arrival of Christian Europeans was the biggest catastrophe imaginable for the native peoples of California" speaks volumes. I am proving nothing, merely citing material that is well-documented and from a wide variety of sources, all to ensure that the article is as neutral as possible. You are the one on the soapbox, and I am rightly suspicious when someone out of the blue trolls through over 2 dozen articles to try to impart their own viewpoint, using "it seems to me" as the basis for their argument. The subject of the missions has as much to do with anthropology and archaeology as they do with history and architecture, and there is no basis for artificially limiting the treatment of these articles to any one particular field of study. The missions didn't spring to life overnight or exist in a vacuum, and some discussion regarding the natives' existence prior to the Spaniards' arrival is merited. Mdhennessey (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You're so blinded by your own agenda that you have to misconstrue my analogy. I didn't say your statements are unsourced. Here is the analogy laid out.
HYPOTHETICAL CASE: Someone fills an article with unsourced statements that seem farfetched. I say, show us some evidence for these statements, and the person answers, show evidence that they're wrong. No, the burden's on him to show evidence.
CASE AT HAND: You insert into a dozen or 15 articles the same paragraph that, for the most part, seems to have next to nothing to do with the articles. I say, show us how this is relevant, and you want me to provide evidence that it isn't.

You say "The missions didn't spring to life overnight or exist in a vacuum, and some discussion regarding the natives' existence prior to the Spaniards' arrival is merited." I think I've said something like that several times myself. It should be obvious that that doesn't include 13,000 year-old pre-history of migrations of peoples across land bridges during the ice age. Your one statement that MIGHT be relevant, comparing the effects of the arrival of the Spaniards with 13,000 years of climatic change, is so broad as to be an ASSESSMENT of (maybe) substantial evidence. It also seems rather incredible, to the point that one might wonder if that assessment represents wishful thinking--to "prove" one's preconceived notions at any cost--rather than to draw objective conclusions from the facts. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

If you don't agree with the way I interpret your analogies then I suggest you stop making them; they are not germane to the discussion at hand in the first place. And though you feel that "comparing the effects of the arrival of the Spaniards with 13,000 years of climatic change" is an "assessment" it is one made by a noted source (the "evidence for these statements" you refer to) and is highly relevant to the topic. If there is a "point" I am trying to make here, it's that well-sourced information need not be removed due to ignorance. All you have injected into the discussion thusfar are your own notions, without verifiable references as counter arguments; I suggest that the more appropriate place for these opinions would be a blog, and not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mdhennessey (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Your continual insistence on posting this irrelevant stuff is, in fact a violation of the soapbox rules that are trying to stand on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, in order for that paragraph to make some contextual sense, you should also have a paragraph on the previous 13,000 years worth of Spanish history. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistory--further observation

I have another thought about this Prehistory controversy. It ought to be clear (to anybody whose vision isn't clouded by some agenda) that some elaborate discussion of a migration by land bridge during an ice age 13,000 years ago, and the archaeological remains of those people, is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. Even leaping the millennia to a single broad, naked statement that Europeans affected the peoples much more than climate change doesn't change that (even with an impressive footnote added). A discussion of the lives, the beliefs, and the ways and customs of the native Americans at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards would certainly be very relevant to the subject of the Spanish missions in general, in order to examine how the missions affected the native peoples (which the missions were certainly meant to do). That would be relevant (without the ice age/Beringia/land bridge clutter) IN ONE ARTICLE--this one, I suppose--on the missions as a whole. But inserting the one bare paragraph, concentrating on the most irrelevant part, into EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on EVERY INDIVIDUAL MISSION is more than excessive. It's just plain pointless. Most readers will look at that paragraph on the ice age, and just ask themselves, "What in the world is that doing here?" Accusing those readers of "woeful ignorance of the subject" seriously loses sight of the point of an encyclopedia. People aren't required to be informed in a subject before looking it up in an encyclopedia; indeed, there might be some people who look things up in order to inform themselves. If many of them need to ask, "what's that got to do with what I'm trying to learn?" then the fault is with the encyclopedia--or more specifically, the author of the passage in question.140.147.160.34 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Ah, but you are not acting as a reader in this regard, you are making editorial comments, which holds you to a different standard. And your statement that, "Most readers will look at that paragraph..." is original research, not an argument worthy of response. How do you know what most readers will do, and who made you their advocate? And I don't consider three sentences of background information "some elaborate discussion," particularly when there are scholarly works specifically dealing with the California missions that go to much greater lengths to detail these points. The information has been incorporated into this particle article for over six months (and some of the other sub-article as well), and no other reader has had the difficulty undertanding the connections to this material that you seem to be having. I ask again that you provide something from a published source that substantiates any of your arguments and I will gladly consider them. Mdhennessey (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Man, can you stretch "logic" any further? "Finding" some rule that prohibits what you don't like? My statement is not original research; it's just obvious, from reading your paragraph. The only thing that land bridges and the ice ages 13,000 years ago might have to do with this is, without them, there might not have BEEN any native Americans for the Spanish to mission to. How do you know no other reader has had difficulty? Because they haven't said so? And SOME of the other sub-articles? It's in every single article on every INDIVIDUAL mission. At most, it belongs in one, main article--and I would suggest you drop the ice age/Beringia business in favor of actually making whatever point you're trying to make. Inserting it into every single one strongly suggest you have a need to say it to everyone, whether they're interested or not. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
Can you find a citation that supports your assertion that this paragraph belongs? It's obvious by your own words that you're trying to prove some kind of "point", which is against the rules. And editors are free to remove anything in an article that doesn't belong, unless you can cite reasons (other than your own opinion) that something does belong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The citations are in the article; you and Stephen Kosciesza are the ones whose positions are supported soley by opinion. You removed the information from the Mission San Francisco article based solely on your own beliefs, without allowing for open discussion, simply responding with the word "gone." Furthermore, your twisting my statement about "making a point" to conform to your views does nothing to change the facts. If you are going to qoute the rules I suggest you start abiding by them. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mdhennessey, you edit others!

Mdhennessey, you've inserted your little paragraph on the ice age and the Beringian land bridge of 13,000 years ago into every single article about every individual Spanish mission in California; you've and responded to observations that it really doesn't relate to the articles with accusations of woeful ignorance (among other things). Yet I notice that you've gone through and unilaterally moved the question about its relevance from those discussion pages--deciding for everybody that the discussion should be moved to here. You seem to have a very high opinion of your own opinion--apparently regarding it as definitive. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

He's been on a "mission", so to speak, starting in early March. Editing other peoples' comments is yet another rules violation. He's looking at a WP:ANI incident at some point, that could derail his little crusade. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Where do you assert that I edited anyone else's comments? And moving the discussions to one central page, with the appropriate link, is within WP guidelines and makes far more sense than spreading them out over 2 dozen talk pages. As far as my opinion being "definitive" is concerned, all I have asked for is to have references provided that support removal of the material, and have instead been responded to with specious arguments, irrelevant analogies, and borderline uncivil remarks. I am the only regular contributor to this group of articles, so there is clearly nothing Machiavellian in my adding material to the group "en masse." If there is a systematic objective here it is the two of you who are perpetrating it. I can't believe that you can't find some constructive contributions to make. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reported to WP:ANI what I believe to be your rules violations, and we'll see if the others agree or not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And no sooner had I put him on notice, he bugged out. [1] I take this as license to revert his changes to these articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Take it as whatever your opinion directs you to, though it is nothing more that an indication that I will not devote any more of my time responding to one unfounded argument after another. And so far as editing the various articles goes, "You own them now." Mdhennessey (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't own anything here, nor do you. I will refrain from actually reverting your paragraph until or if someone comments on the WP:ANI page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That issue is marked resolved. Another user already removed the paragraph from the San Francisco page. I'll see what I can do about doing likewise for the others. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)