Talk:California genocide

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Frankie aceves.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brad.R.J.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Death Toll in title
I do not see myself as quite qualified to make this judgement but I'm confused. I am leaving this message here in the hope that someone with a greater oversight of this will sort it. The title box on the top right lists total death toll as 4,500 - 16,000. All of the charts on the page show population numbers going down 250k and back again (I assume due to births) with an additon of around 50 years as it starts in 1830 (vs 1846) and goes up to 1910 (vs 1873 in the title box). Then near the bottom of the Statehood section is a cited claim that over 100,000 people were killed by non-state actors (miners). Personally I think this is a case of the victor writing the history books, but generally speaking are we really supposed to stick to the number 4,500 to 16,000 when it's so clearly incorrect (it's less than 10% of the numbers that disappeared and we have cite reports on the same page that 100k people were killed by non-natives).

Also with the fact that these were civilians apparently making most of the killings and the Indians weren't exactly the sort of community with passports and census papers, I don't expect a death record or citations for most of the deceased... Is it specifically breaking any WP rules to change the death toll to something more obviously sane?

Also, when I was a kid at school I used to hear that disease killed most of the Native Americans, but later found out that this was largely becausue it was weaponised as soon as the non-natives discovered native susceptibility to disease. This kind of makes the idea that disease is killing NA people secondary as disease is already weaponised and thus those who die still die effectively at the hands of the Spanish and British Settlers. 91.125.89.33 (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Text ref: An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians 1850
Full text

An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians April 22, 1850

http://www.indiancanyon.org/ACTof1850.html

An interesting read. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.63.70 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Aborigines killed aborigines first
It was way more complicated: Spanish Catholic priests enslaving by force, then Russians bringing Inuits who decimated the locals and more.

19th c. clash of civilizations plus geopolitics, of sorts. History is not black and white.

I have fixed the false photo description and infobox and lead. Discuss it here, pinging me. Zezen (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Zezen, I don't know about your overall analysis, but you are right that this photo doesn't have anything to do with genocide in California in the mid-19th century. I have replaced it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Thank you User:GPRamirez5 for doing so and for not taking it personally.

Please thus also revert yourself on https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/390089191 so it is not misused by clueless Wikipedians or press again.

2. I say no to what you did again. The photo that you removed does have a lot to do with this genocide. It illustrates it: Aborigines killed aborigines, on purpose, details as per my note above or the URL to the source that you had removed as per Point 1, as well.

-> Let us keep this photo, elaborating on when it all started, and whodunnit, as per the very statistics in the article itself and photo's background.

Now two general requests to you:

3. As per my fuller note on your Talk, I assumed WP:GF of the previous editors here and on WikiMedia but then Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas: let us also obey the latter rule.

-> Let us not falsify history, as it borders on genocide denial.

4. I also assume that I may be wrong hereby, too, myself. Maybe completely in the wrong. If so, convince me by using WP:RS and quoting Wiki policies herein first, as I asked for above, commenting my original edits to the article itself before such silent reverts.

Bows to all.

Zezen (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, my reverting you was no bolder than you editing in the first place. But WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion. I don't see where you've provided RS, just a one hundred year article from an Arctic journal. The best and most recent scholarship on California genocide does not mention Inuits at all.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear @talk:

I assume WP:GF also in regards to your edits, and I thus treat your (alas short) comment as CHALLENGE to the RS I had provided, that is that the relevant page from the special subsite about the island part of this genocide (http://calliope.cse.sc.edu/lonewoman/about) was insufficient.

I am not sure if you had read it before reverting me, so here we go, a direct quote: This digital archive collects, transcribes, annotates, and maps more than 450 nineteenth- and twentieth-century documents relevant to the story of the Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island. This Nicoleña was isolated alone on the most remote of the California Channel Islands between 1835-53, an event triggered by a massacre resulting from the international sea otter trade and then by the Spanish policy of reducción, or the in-gathering of Native tribes to Catholic Missions ...

Do the words "massacre" and "the Spanish" figure there prominently?

Here is another RS then: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016) https://www.nps.gov/subjects/islandofthebluedolphins/upload/JCGBA_36-1_Morris-etal_final.pdf, page 91 and ff.: In 1814  a  massacre  of  Nicoleños  occurred  when  a  Russian  American  Company  (RAC)  hunting  crew  composed  of  Alaskan  natives,  led  by  Yakov  Babin,  was  brought  to  the  island. Some Nicoleños  reportedly  killed  one  of  the  RAC  Alaskan  native  hunters,  and  in  retribution  the  remaining  hunters  killed  many  of  the  native  islanders [...] what  one  RAC  official  termed  an “extermination”

quoting four other 21 c. researchers and their publications (q.v.). Let thus start with your restoring point 1 above, maybe adding also these other sources above, so that we can use image 1 to illustrate real history of this genocide, as per point 2.

If I am wrong, please convince me, quoting another WP policy that I am not aware of, or finding a better RS, e.g. claiming that it did not happen, so that we may arrive at the middle ground: a well-sourced truth, thus creating another NPOV Wikipedia article and also discovering something about ourselves and our prejudices or previously mistaken beliefs, as well.

Zezen (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Zezen, I see scholarly consensus of a massacre, but I don't see any reference to a systematic and premeditated project like genocide. They are two different things. Some scholars hold the Atlantic slave trade to be a genocide, but most don't, even though it's definitely connected to massacre and depopulation in West Africa. Some white settlers were massacred by indigenous people, but there is no legitimacy to the idea of white genocide. You need a consensus among historians to feature the massacre in this article.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:GPRamirez5

You have neither self-reverted nor enhanced the source in https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:History/File:Californiakillingfields.jpg

as per Point 1 above, so I do not WP:GF to you anymore.

Please use WP:3 should you doubt mine.

Now, partially acknowledging your arguments about the scholarly consensus or lack thereof, I will revert you fully on 1 and update 2 accordingly.

I will try again to provide rationale here, mostly by quoting other WP:RSes for my further edits to this article.

Hopefully, we will reach a compromise.

Zezen (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Spot-checking sources on this page
I spot checked the first source: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300181364/american-genocide

for the number of the victims in the current version of this article, which posits:

Between 1846 and 1873, European Americans are estimated to have killed outright some 9,492[1] to 16,094[1] -> Madley, Benjamin (2016). An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873. Yale University Press. pp. 11, 351

The claimed figure is not there on Page 11.

Just the opposite, the author makes a modest and justified reservation on the same page 11: [...] These pages [of this book] cite very little archaeological evidence. Written histories draw from imperfect sources, and this book is no exception. The non-Indian perpetrator and bystander reports that form the backbone of this monograph were often written or delivered by biased individuals, sometimes by the very men organizing, inciting, or perpetrating the killing. Some may have deliberately exaggerated, minimized, misconstrued, or concealed genocidal intentions and actions. Moreover, because many sources had little interest in or knowledge of specific California Indian names, tribal groups, or geography,their reports often fail to include important information. This book is the product of the surest available sources and frequently draws on multiple sources to describe a single event.

Interestingly, further down on the next page the author attributes genocidal motivations for some massacres, so Inuit decimation of the "indigenous peoples of California on the San Nicolas island" (the original photo illustrating guilt of the presumed White perpetrators) would qualify as genocide using his definition, see also a critiquebthis book and of such claims here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/books/review/an-american-genocide-by-benja.html

One more argument to expand the current POV scope by naming all the perpetrators.

As by now both the original illustrating photograph and the first quoted source failed verification, I alert fellow Wikipedians that the other claims and sources in this article may also be false.

Zezen (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Zezen, you spot checked half the citation, pp. 11...What is on pp. 351?GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I wrote it. I left the other checks and critique for the other colleagues (e.g. you), as a WikiDragon.

A. I am removing this claim  due to the failed ref. B. Please elaborate about Page 351, using a similar detailed quote to mine, and contrasting to his caveat on Page 11 then for us, before restoring. Zezen (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s there: “the fact that non-Indians killed many more California Indians (at least 9,492-16,094) than had previously been estimated”   Volunteer Marek   20:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Part of a Larger Genocide of Native Americans
Is there any reason in particular for there to be an article specifically on the "California" 'genocide' of Native Americans? The vast killings/genocide of Native Americans in the USA was across every state, not just specifically "California". In a way, this kind of article seems to be a misplaced focus. What about the "Trail of Tears"? Ryoung 122 16:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The current governor has said it was genocide in California. I don't know about other states. JudgeJells (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Understandable question, in the case of the California Native Americans, there was no place for them to go after such harassment, land theft, and diplacement as occurred with other nations. Seldom has there been such an open formal and recorded policy to "exterminate" peoples as worded by the California Governor on January 6, 1851, at his State of the State address to the California Senate, 1st Governor Peter Burnett said: "That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected. While we cannot anticipate this result but with painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert." This statement and its effects were the direct root of the recent formal apology by the State Governor on June, 2019, for the genocide: "That’s what it was, a genocide. No other way to describe it... " More scholarly evidence will be forthcoming to emphasise the nation-wide aspects of genocide perpetrated on Native Americans: see for example "Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas" by Jeffrey Ostler, Yale University Press, (Part 1), and expect more from Part 2. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/07/02/native-american-genocide/--Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I sometimes struggle to understand 'old timey' ways of phrasing things. What is meant by the governor when he says 'painful regret'? LastDodo (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a politician's obfuscation of the truth; "newspeak", the pretence of being ethical and caring while you simultaneously promote the extermination of a people.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm but you said this statement was an 'open formal and recorded policy to "exterminate" peoples'. If in this statement he is pretending to be ethical and caring then its not really an open formal and recorded policy. Could you translate for me exactly what is meant by 'While we cannot anticipate this result but with painful regret'? Is he not saying something more like 'its bad but its inevitable so there's no point in trying to stop it'? LastDodo (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You interpret it as you will. It was a public, recorded statement of policy. Whether you believe in his "regret", is up to you.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I believe him. I'm simply saying that if he is saying that the extermination of Native Americans is inevitable but regrettable, then that statement does not constitute 'open formal and recorded policy'. LastDodo (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The full speech makes it quite clear that the Native Americans constantly perpetrate theft and murder against white settlers, and that the white settlers respond in kind. This ridiculous, absurd politically correct Wikipedia page would have its readers imagine that whites attacked natives out of pure malice, rather than out of a tit-for-tat cycle of violence.

From the same speech, here's just one example of a native massacre of whites which is of course not mentioned anywhere on this idiotic page:

''The first of these attacks was made on the 23d day of April last, at the confluence of the Gila and Colorado, where Glanton and a party of thirteen men had established a ferry across the latter stream. The attack was preconcerted, sudden, and unexpected and successful, that eleven of Glanton's party, including himself, were killed on the spot, and only three were able to escape, one of whom was wounded. It is possible that Glanton's party may have been guilty of some impropriety that gave immediate offence to the Indians; but the true motive no doubt arose from that jealousy which the Indian entertains of the white man, and which would naturally be aroused by the establishment of a ferry near the point where the Indians had a ferry of their own across the same stream. However this may be, the attack was excessive and unjustifiable, and amounted to a decided and serious act of war.''

https://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/s_01-Burnett2.html AvidReader11663 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * To me this still seems to leave the question open as to whether there was official policy to exterminate the native Americans of California. Re-reading the quoted section of the speech ('with painful regret' and 'beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert') it seems to me that while there may have been a policy, the governor is certainly not admitting to it in this speech. This interpretation - that native extinction is simply inevitable, rather than policy seems to be back up by the following section:
 * Considering the number and mere predatory character of the attacks at so many different points along our whole frontier, I had determined, in my own mind to leave the people of each neighborhood to protect themselves, believing they would be able to do so, and that a regular force would not find employment in the field. In two instances only have I deviated from the rule...
 * And
 * This state of things, though produced at an earlier period by the exciting causes mentioned, would still have followed in due course of time. Our American experience has demonstrated the fact, that the two races cannot live in the same vicinity in peace.
 * In other words, the governor is saying that the immigrants and natives are locked in an inevitable battle to the death which cannot be stopped and in which the latter will perish, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is of course not necessarily true, but it does seem to be what he's saying. LastDodo (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It was indeed official policy, as a good number of scholarly sources outline (bounties on Native peoples being the clearest example). The "inevitable extinction" narrative that was espoused at the time was an excuse that such policies were just and part of some "inevitable battle to the death," which was... not inevitable.--Hobomok (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was specifically questioning whether that speech constituted such 'open formal and recorded policy', as claimed above. As to other evidence, were the bounties paid by the state and on any and all native americans, or only for specific ones? Because if there was a standing bounty on 'any and all', then I do have to agree with you. LastDodo (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand, apologies for misunderstanding. On the subject of bounties, though, it was a standing bounty on all native peoples in California, and the prices were based on age. For a public source, see historian James Rawls here via PBS, journal article here from Kari Norgaard, Ron Reed, and Carolina Van Horn, and Clifford Trafzer's book, Exterminate Them.--Hobomok (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. That does seem pretty damning. More so than the governor's speech in fact. Though I'm a little confused how Indian reservations can be introduced simultaneously with bounties. That article also says $1m was spent in 1851 and 1852 on exterminating Indians. Presumably that money was spent rather more inefficiently than on bounty hunters, as had it been, that would equate to 4 million dead Indians if the hunters were paid $0.25 per scalp. LastDodo (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have completely garbled the sources. The PBS site and Exterminate Them only speak of bounties placed by local governments and not the state, while the journal article does claim the state placed bounties but does not cite its statement.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources are fine to make the claims the user defends here. The PBS source shows public funding going toward bounties. Exterminate Them does indeed speak of local and state governments. The journal article understands these practices as common knowledge in the article’s field (because it is). You’ve been told you’re wrong about issues and facts around genocide of Indigenous peoples elsewhere on this talk page and on other pages now. What’s going on with this recent obsession you have with calling into question appropriate sources and historical facts on this topic? 2607:8400:26C2:2:F088:CA8C:55C:230F (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Quote where the PBS source and Exterminate Them mention the State (as in the State of California) setting bounties.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that more about these bounties, which are surely an important part of the whole story, should be included in the article. At present CTRL-F 'bount' only turns up one use of the word, where all it says is '1851–69: California pays bounties for the killing of Native Americans.' I would like to know about them. For example, if I was a 'civilised' native american, wearing European clothes and so forth, would the bounty still apply to me? That matters because it tells us about the motivations and intentions of those paying the bounties and thus the whole episode. LastDodo (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Ed Castillo a Reliable Source?
Ed Castillo's claim of 100,000 Native Americans killed in 1848 and 1849 strikes me as dubious and unreliable. This is a claim made by an activist who has built a career around sensationalizing the (very real) plight of Native Americans. What's really strange is that he was asked to write the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission's history of the genocide which is where this article sources this figure from but no other reliable source that I could find backs up his 6 figure (100,000) claim. Should his dubious stats even be included when it's so radically different than anything else found in the academic literature?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You would need a reliable source directly addressing and challenging Castillo's statements; that he is an "activist" is irrelevant, given his academic credentials. Your personal opinion of Castillo is not relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be very cautious about heeding the advice of a pant-soiling troublemaker. Let's stick to the facts, please. 2600:1012:B043:81DA:DCAF:83B6:63C7:C586 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ^ user has been blocked from Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.50.132 (talk • contribs)

Actual deathtoll is around 300,000
Many of the killings by vigilantes, soldiers and militiamen were not recorded. So the actual deathtoll is estimated to be much higher. For example this video by Insider News (see from 8:30): Why The Gold Rush Is One Of The Darkest Moments In US History | Whitewashed shows a lot of the casualties were not recorded in official documents. The state of California paid bounties, anywhere from 50 cents to 5 dollars (source: California Research Bureau). They found the receipts in the 1990s which totaled over $1.6 million dollars. So if you put a rough estimate of bounties into that $1.6 million dollar figure, you'll see easily 300,000 (three hundred thousand) people died during the gold rush itself. So many details continue to be ignored and omitted from school and history books such as Holt McDougal's United States History. -Artanisen (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By bounties, you are assuming it was against the native Californians and not mountain lions, etc.? Anyway, you'll need reliable academic sources for such figures, not sensationalist "Insider News" videos, nor result to WP:SYNTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.50.132 (talk • contribs)


 * Um… there are many, many clearly documented bounties placed on Native peoples during this period.-Hobomok (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Academic debate on genocide
It is misleading to include Michael Magliari in the 'against' section since he agrees with the term genocide in his review of Benjamin Madley's book. Nor is the large quote from him necessary, since the article does not include any other large quotes. ReadingBooks22 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant because he's saying that others may disagree with Madley's use of the Genocide Convention as well as saying that Madley's case against the federal government is much weaker than his case against other entities.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove the sections in timeline about eugenics sterilization and indian boarding schools
The "California Genocide" was a specific set of historical events, not every racist act committed against Native Americans in California. In fact the whole timeline section is very poorly written and could easily be removed. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the timeline is useful to readers, however I think it is not placed in the right location. It makes more sense to be moved after the Indigenous peoples and contact subsections, rather than before. I do agree that whoever added the timeline did sloppy sourcing, thank you for calling attention to that. However I think it can be improved; I've added several reliable sources for some of the entries. If you are up for collaborating, we could improve the sourcing together, if you are not up for collaborating, I can work on it alone, or reach out to an appropriate WikiProject. Netherzone (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is not just the sourcing; the problem is the text as well, which you have proven by adding sources that do not say what the text says. Furthermore, your response does not defend the inclusion of Indian boarding schools and forced sterilization in the timeline.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Boarding schools killed massive numbers of Indigenous children. While their stated aim was "Kill the Indian, Save the Man", they also just murdered kids. Look at the reports of mass graves being found. Similarly, the forced sterilization of Native women was part of an intentional genocide. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "the forced sterilization of Native women was part of an intentional genocide" I thought it was part of Eugenics in the United States and was not actually limited to Native American women. Per the main article: "a disproportionate number of those who fell victim to eugenicists' sterilization initiatives were women who were identified as African American, Hispanic, or Native American." :
 * "An estimated 40% of Native American women (60,000–70,000 women) and 10% of Native American men in the United States underwent sterilization in the 1970s. A General Accounting Office (GAO) report in 1976 found that 3,406 Native American women, 3,000 of which were of childbearing age, were sterilized by the Indian Health Service (IHS) in Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and South Dakota from 1973 to 1976. The GAO report did not conclude any instances of coerced sterilization, but called for the reform of IHS and contract doctors' processes of obtaining informed consent for sterilization procedures. The IHS informed consent processes examined by the GAO did not comply with a 1974 ruling of the U.S. District Court that "any individual contemplating sterilization should be advised orally at the outset that at no time could federal benefits be withdrawn because of failure to agree to sterilization." Dimadick (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact it was not limited to indigenous Americans is not material here. The Holocaust was also not limited to Jewish people- yet is undeniably an instance of attempted Jewish genocide. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the California Genocide was a specific set of historical events that is commonly agreed to have ended in the 1870s. Whether or not you consider Indian boarding schools part of it (via treating manslaughter the same as murder) as irrelevant. Reliable sources do not treat them as part of the California Genocide. The same applies to forced sterilization, except even more so because most of the cases were not eugenically motivated.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "commonly agreed to have ended in the 1870s"


 * Could you provide evidence for this claim? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more citations to support the claims in the timeline. I've also reached out to the IP editor who added the timeline asking them to correct their own sourcing errors. Pinging them here also, altho because they are an IP not sure if they will get the ping . I'll wait another week or two to hopefully hear back from them, in the meantime, I may make additional citation improvements. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt as a newbie that their efforts were in good faith, but they don't understand how sourcing works on WP and the importance of accuracy. Netherzone (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, improving the sourcing on some of the other entries is good, but my primary focus here is on removing the entries on Indian boarding schoools and forced sterilization, because reliable sources do not treat them as part of the California Genocide.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has yet provided an argument for treating Indian boarding schools and forced sterilization as part of the California Genocide. If no one does in the next few days, I will remove them from the timeline.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Several editors above have addressed this. Also please read the additional citations I added. Consensus at this time is to leave it in. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, no editors on this talk page have presented an argument for treating Indian boarding schools and forced sterilization as part of the California Genocide. One claimed they also counted as genocide, but that's not the same thing--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Any instance of forced sterilization of a people is equal to genocide. I am surprised at the opposition expressed here. It's basic stuff. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, because the question is not whether or not sterilization is genocide but whether or not sterilization was part of the specific genocide this article talks about.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic of "California genocide" is about the genocide of Native Americans in California. The topic is wide enough to include every sort of genocidal activity against Native Americans in California. Certainly you can discuss the main initial activity as the primary topic, but subsequent programs should be included in their own section. No other Wikipedia article contains this info, and even if there was another article, this one here would summarize that one. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Eldomtom2, I see that you tried removing similar information from another article (your edit was reverted), content that was reliably sourced.
 * Several editors disagree with the changes you want to make, WP operates on a consensus model and the consensus is not in favor of the point you are trying to make here. Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * At the risk of going against the current consensus, I do believe that Eldomtom2's point still hasn't been fully understood. The article defines "The California Genocide" as "the killing of thousands of Indigenous peoples of California by United States government agents and private citizens in the 19th century". It also provides a date range: "1846-1873". Eldomtom2's argument is that the genocidal phenomena of boarding schools and forced sterilization fall outside of this date range. Therefore, they are part of genocide in California, but not a part of "The California Genocide". I think an apt comparison may be the Armenian Genocide. Though genocidal actions against Armenians continued after 1917, they do not technically fall within the scope of The Armenian Genocide, which is typically defined as lasting from 1915-1917, with the end of that period coinciding with the end of state-sponsored genocidal killings (though not with the end of all genocidal phenomena). Likewise, The California Genocide is typically understood academically/historically as referring to a period of intense genocidal killings and enslavement carried out with varying levels of government sponsorship from 1846-1873. I can propose a number of different ways we could proceed:
 * Through editor consensus we decide that The California Genocide's actual date range is 1846 - present day. For consistency's sake, it may be best to extent it backwards to 1769 as well, when the Mission system was established. Seeing as how The California Genocide is a predefined historical concept this may be suboptimal, but perhaps could be achieved if we find sources that periodize The California Genocide differently.
 * We establish a separate article, "Genocide in California," which collects all the pertinent information from 1769 to the present. This has the benefit of providing a common home for all of this information that is otherwise dispersed across other articles such as Eugenics in the United States.
 * Removing all genocidal actions falling outside of the range of The California Genocide (1846-1873), but ensuring that they are fully documented in other relevant articles (Eugenics in the United States, genocide of indigenous peoples, etc.) and further ensuring that these relevant articles and/or article sections are linked in the "See also" section.
 * Discussing post-1873 genocidal phenomena in an "Aftermath" section, similarly to how it is done in the Armenian Genocide article. This way we get some of the same context without going out of line with the typical periodization of the California Genocide.
 * I hope this all made sense, and look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pliny has put my point very well. Personally I would support 3, as it avoids presenting things like Indian boarding schools as in any way California-specific. (As a side note - pages on eugenics are not a natural home for information on forced sterilization of Native Americans, as they were primarily motivated by beliefs in minority overpopulation rather than a desire to eliminate traits from the gene pool) Also, re: Netherzone's comment, I posted my reasoning for that removal on the talk page.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that the sources have again been changed. Unfortunately they continue to reenforce my point. From one of the latest ones added to the boarding school section: The source is clearly separating the "California Genocide" (massacres primarily in northern California) from other actions that took place in California that also arguably counted as genocide.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Asking again if anyone would object to me removing the content in question, since there hasn't been any disagreement with Pliny's argument (which I agree with).--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "When the United States took over the then secularized missions, the government launched clear-cut genocide in Northern California and event genocide or cultural genocide in Southern California, intensifying the destruction. By the 20th century both California and the United States had moved into cultural suppression and coercive assimilation policies as their primary modalities."


 * If the issue is just that these events fall outside an official date range, they could be moved to a subsection titled "aftermath" (or into the existing "legacy" section).It's also confusing that the timeline is in the background section. I had trouble finding the content under discussion. Larataguera (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Now that it's been a couple of months, do we have any sort of consensus regarding this material?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there does not appear to be a clear consensus to remove the content. Several editors feel it should remain in the article.. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think there's a consensus to keep the content, or do you think there is no consensus?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's consensus to keep it, but I still think it's in the wrong place. Obviously not "background". Maybe I'll make time to move it later, not sure if it'll get to the top of my list though. I could imagine consensus developing for Pliny's #4 above – moving this information to a legacy or aftermath section. Larataguera (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I too think there is consensus to keep the content. @Larataguera idea to move the content to a different section is fine with me. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to moving the content to a Legacy/Aftermath section.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would keep as is and not move to a legacy/aftermath section; the actions in question have a clear continuity through from the genocide and calling them a legacy/aftermath isn't accurate (or helpful to the reader). Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have repeated multiple times, placing them in the Timeline section implies that they were part of the event known as the "California genocide", which is not something stated in academic sources.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

So what is the 'California genocide' whose dates academics all agree on? If I glance at the bibliography I see both Madley and Lindsay use 1846-1873 in their subtitles, but the former's title is "An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873". If taken narrowly the first date would seem limited to the federal govenment's role: 1846 and the start of the Mexican War is chosen to exclude Spanish, Mexican and Russian genocide, and the California legislature doesn't seem to have met till 1850. The WP article doesn't explain the 1873 watershed either. Sparafucil (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * IIRC 1873 is generally chosen as marking the end of massacres. As I have stated multiple times, any genocidal acts committed after 1873 are considered to be separate events.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we get that you have stated so multiple times, but in your first post you argue against including "every racist act committed against Native Americans in California". That they were racist does not convincingly establish that Indian schools don't fit the definition of cultural genocide as well. Do you want an article entitled California genocides, 1846-1873, and what would its rationale be exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparafucil (talk • contribs)
 * @Eldomtom2, repeating yourself multiple times does not change the consensus. To continue to make the same arguments again and again could be construed as bludgeoning the process if it continues. Just an observation. Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this article is about the California genocide, singular, and other genocidal acts committed by California do not fall within its scope. Academics writing about the California genocide do not talk about things like Indian boarding schools except in things like "aftermath" sections - they do not treat them as part of the same event, and nor should we. It shouldn't be moved to California genocides, 1846-1873 as the other events people are arguing to be included on the page took place after 1873. The only appropriate title for an article that talk about the California genocide and things like Indian boarding schools in the same article would be something like Genocide against Native Americans in California.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eldomtom2, since consensus matters. I also really think you guys should respond to what he says rather than just standing behind 'consensus'. He is not denying there is a consensus, he is trying to change it through discussion. By taking part and reading the dicussion, people can form their views, with the result being an informed consensus that can be defended. And since we are concerning ourselves with the timeline, perhaps someone can add the date 1873 and say what happened then, since it is mentioned in both the lede and the infobox but is absent from the timeline. LastDodo (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: This is America
— Assignment last updated by Llynn2 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST3443 The Frontier Before 1850
— Assignment last updated by Afh1858 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization
Why is indigenous capitalized? It is just an ethnic/racial term like white, black, and so on, right? 98.109.137.129 (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)