Talk:Charles Maclay

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

What do you think of charles maclay?

Why does the tribe's opinion get mention here?

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reading this page, it is mentioned 3 separate times that the Tataviam believe Maclay "illegally displaced them from their land." But as both the article and news reports note, this isn't true: Maclay had bought the land.

From the article: "In 1874, Maclay purchased a 56,000 acre land grant" From news coverage: "After purchasing a 56,000 acre land grant in 1874, what was known as San Fernando Rancho, Maclay ruthlessly displaced and, the tribe believes, illegally removed the Tataviam people from their land."

Given that no evidence has been presented -- either here, or by the tribe in the below article -- for the claim that Maclay's actions were illegal (the San Fernando Sun even cites an 1896 article that argues the eviction was inhumane, but not illegal) why is there any mention of illegality here? This seems slanderous to Maclay -- maybe not in a legal way, but morally without a doubt.

(By the way, this article is currently plagiarizing the San Fernando Sun word for word. That too should be fixed.) [1]https://sanfernandosun.com/2019/02/06/maclays-descendants-make-their-case-to-not-rename-street/) 50.202.144.210 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic