Talk:Mission San Francisco de Asís

It appears that there is some confusion regarding the use and meaning of the term Basilica and how it should apply to certain Spanish settlements of the California Mission System. Basilica in its canonical sense refers specifically to a worship space ("a church of very important historical significance") which, in the case of the missions, only applies to one particular element of the outpost. Missions consisted of workshops, kitchens, dormitories, farmlands, etc. in addition to the chapel and ancillary spaces. More specifically:

• San Diego de Alcalá refers to itself on its website as both a "Mission" and a "Basilica."
• San Carlos Borroméo de Carmelo specifically uses the term only in reference to one of its worship spaces, and it makes a clear distinction between the "Basilica" and the "Blessed Sacrament Chapel."
• San Francisco de Asís (Mission Dolores) does not use the term on its website, and the "Basilica" there specifically consists of an adjacent structure that was not in existence until relatively recently.
• San Juan Capistrano maintains separate websites for the Mission and the adjacent parish church and only uses the term on the parish website. As with San Francisco de Asís, the "Basilica" there specifically consists of an adjacent structure that was not in existence until relatively recently. Though both sites are owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, they are legally separate entities.

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, "…the word mission is confined to the work of bringing pagans into the Church" which is clearly not the function of these modern churches. The facilities in question were established as temporary outposts, and the four listed above received the "Basilica" designation only after they had served their original purpose and had been "resurrected" by the Catholic Church many years later—each of the articles states as much.

These are all negative POV statements.

--Lordkinbote 07:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slave Labor

Andrew Galvan, the new curator of Mission Dolores, claims that the Mission was built by Ohlone slave labor. You can find his comments here. --Thomas Veil 19:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reference to slave labor will continue far past our lives. The new curator seems to be of indigineos blood. The article make reference to it. The point can be argued to death (no pun intended), and should warrent mention in the article. But it can also be mentioned in the Ohlone article, which is quite defective. Then again I plan to fix that article sometime in the future, maybe christmas. meatclerk 07:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• The City of San Francisco was a streamlined passenger train jointly operated by the Chicago and North Western Railway , the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Union Pacific Railroad between 1936 and 1971; the service ran between Chicago, Illinois and Oakland, California. Many of the cars bore the name of locales in and around its namesake city, one of these (a dining car) being Mission Dolores.

This demonstrates the extent to which the missions have influenced our modern culture, and should be retained.Mr Snrub 05:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it illustrates the lengths to which rail foamers will go to push their interests on others. This is so remotely related to the subject of the article that in any real encyclopedia, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Leave it in the railroad articles, please. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of having a "Trivia" section in an article, then? This one also makes mention of the mission's appearance in a motion picture, and has links to two articles about ships that were named after it, just part of the beauty of Wikipedia (inclusion). And please cease referring to railfans as "rail foamers"—it is rude and considered to be a personal attack by some.--Lord Kinbote 06:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

New information on the mission name

I'm doing research on creeks and streams in San Mateo County. Covering all my bases I decided to check the boxes in the RWC Historical Archive Room. I find an article about water and a creek in the Mission District. As it turns out, the name may, in fact originally be the creek name, but no doubt this will be argued by historians.

The article reads:

says Font, "about one league (...) We then (...) which because it was the Friday of Sorrows we called the Arroyo do los Dolores.

(...) "On June 27," writes Father Palou. "(...) and which is in sight of the Ensenada de los Llorones (...).

In fact, they are are both talking about the same creek. Arroyo and [Ensenada] are both names used to describe creeks. Even though Palou calls the "lagoon" the place Anza named, that may be incorrect. As was the custom the party carried a calendar of holy days (a book), this allowed them to use it as a reference for naming locations.

Mostly likely Font carried the book and choose the name, then it was settled by a campfire discussion. Font does say "we", and it (the decision by committee) can certainly be found to be a common practice.

The next point is that Palou did not make the survey trip, so quite easily he would assume the naming attributed to Anza as a practice of courtesy. Franciscan frys take oaths of humilty. He is the most accurate of all the frys, so he is quoted and used most frequently as a "primary" source. However, he was not there when it was named.

Next, the map is attributed to "Elredge". Who may or may not be accurate in the information. But this information certainly merits investigation.

Lastly, I assume not many historians read Spanish and English as I do. I certainly have have noted many errors by local historians on the most basic things, of which I cannot confess to any at this moment (but if I must I will).

I have photocopied the pages so anyone may look at them (now). The pages do not lead back to my website and do not link directly to other unpublished notes I have. So please if you poke around don't link to anything from a public website. That is, bookmark it if you must, but don't leave a trace for the webcrawlers. You may use any of my notes, without citing me.

Mission Dolores

I took Spanish for seven years and I know for a fact that dolor means pain. 24.4.131.142 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It also means "sorrow." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.174.92.169 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Name

When I went there on vacation, the pamphlet said it was referred to as "Misón Dolorosa" in Spanish. Should this be mentioned? 69.81.178.253 01:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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