Talk:Spanish missions in California/Archive 2

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)

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. 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)

misleading name
The name of this article is confusing as hell. If you are going to call it "Spanish missions in California" you should cover Alta and Baja. You have a "Spanish missions in Baja California". Or is there some f**ed up policy to use modern day place names? Then could you say "Spanish missions in Modern Day California" or "Spanish missions in California (US State)" or some thing? "Spanish missions in California" when I wanted to know about "Spanish missions in Baja California" damn confusing... should it be "Spanish missions in the Baja California Peninsula" or "Spanish missions in Baja California and Baja California Sur" because it covers both modern day states using the historical name so make this one say "Alta" or merge the two into one story please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.125.117 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hardly think this article's title is "misleading", let alone "confusing as hell". But to address the issue of California missions v. Alta California missions, I have created a redirect so that anyone searching for Spanish missions in Alta California will be directed to this article.  --anietor (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

California Statehood
In the "california statehood"-section, it says that the president was negotiating treaties with indians. But it doesn't say about what. Land? Property? Their acceptance of the white government? Does somebody know? --PaterMcFly talk contribs 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect the page?
Maybe you should somehow protect the page against vandals:

http://www.chainsawsuit.com/20091202.shtml

91.156.150.117 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Spanish missions in California. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://missionsofcalifornia.org/foundation/past_campaigns.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12106a.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.missionsantaines.org/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Spanish missions in California. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://missionsofcalifornia.org/foundation/past_campaigns.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12106a.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.missionsantaines.org/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406082553/http://www.ca-missions.org/ to http://www.ca-missions.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)