Talk:Spanish missions in California/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

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. (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. (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)