Talk:Arizona

---

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

GRAND CANYON

How about adding a creationist viewpoint on how the Grand Canyon was formed? Or just leave how it was formed out all together and leave that up to the Grand Canyon article?

No, this would be inappropriate. The vast majority of people (not just scientists) agree that the Grand Canyon was not formed in a matter of weeks. This viewpoint belongs neither on Arizona or Grand Canyon but on Creationism. Jeeves 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Arizona has nothing to do with religion. I would recommend finding a religious wiki to share your viewpoint. --Kahnadex 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do NOT do that.

Agree for all of the reasons stated above, as well as the yet unmentioned fact that there is absolutely nothing mentioned about the Grand Canyon in any translation of the Christian or Hebrew versions of creation that I have ever heard about. Were such an effort to be attempted, the only meaningful result would be a one-liner stating that the Grand Canyon just flat out isn't even mentioned in Genesis! Imagine what a different place the USA would be if the typical fundamentalist Christian actually read the actual Christian bible from one end to the other... Zaphraud (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The church was terrified that someone would read the good book and it's a pretty good book. That's why they Kept the bible in Latin for so long. Sorry, I'm a preacher's kid. ;]Romanfall (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC) romanfall

Although the phrase "creation science" is as oxymoronic as it sounds, creationism is still (like science) an attempt to find explanations for everything in the world, not just the things that are mentioned in the Bible. Even for those Christians who hold to a doctrine like sola scriptura, the fact that the Bible doesn't mention the Grand Canyon isn't a reason why there can't be a "creationist viewpoint on how the Grand Canyon was formed." There are plenty of other reasons why such a viewpoint doesn't belong in this article, but "it's not mentioned in the Bible" isn't one of them. --Ojuice5001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.121.104 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its still an absolutely crazy idea, considering that the entire continent of North America isn't even mentioned in the hebrew mythology -or- the hebrew-themed preface to the Christian Bible. Where do these nutters come up with these crazy ideas, anyways? Don't they realize that 90+% of creation science is complete and total heresy? Zaphraud (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Federal representation section

This section needs to be updated with the recent November 2006 election results.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.217.226 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Split?

This is a quite long page, im sure that there might be a way to split it into other pages.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotmenot (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada?

Somebody has changed the "Georgraphy" section and filled it with lots of interesting and unusual information. I don't know lots about Arizona, but I do know that it isn't located in Canada, and I also know that "Bambi" is not tea, and I don't think that Arizona even grows tea! Perhaps this information could be fixed? Flivelwitz (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just some vandalism, since fixed by User:Plazak. If you notice things like this in the future, usually the last edit in the article's history will be vandalism, and can usually be reverted easily. AlexiusHoratius 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

History?

Most of the articles on U.S. states are shamefully lacking any history before European colonization. I know reliable information on pre-Columbian history is sparse, but it isn't nonexistent. Could someone who knows something about this at least put together a paragraph or two? The way the article currently reads, it sounds as if the place and its indigenous peoples may have just sprung up in 1539.Carlaclaws (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Time Zone

The time zone thing on the side lists Arizona as being in Mountain time. This is only true half of the year. Arizona does not change its clocks when the rest of the country sets theirs forward or back, so Arizona is usually described as its own time zone or alternatively as switching between Mountain half of the year and Pacific the other half. I'm not sure how to change something in a side tab like that and I'm not sure where such a mention should go in the article itself, so I'll leave the editing to my betters. ;) --Banyan (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the statement is true : Arizona is on Mountain Standard Time all year long. MST is functionally identical to Pacific Daylight Time but it is not the same time zone, it is not as if the timezone boundaries are moving around Arizona throughout the year. I'm trying to think of a good analogy but I cannot. Here is another way to look at it. Pacific Standard Time is UTC-8. Pacific Daylight Time and Mountain Standard Time are both UTC-7. Mountain Daylight Time is UTC-6. Arizona is always on UTC-7. For all intents and purposes, Arizona could therefore be described as being on the same time as either MST or PDT at any time during the year. Rather than create the idea of a state floating back and forth among time zones, which is a silly concept, it is accurately described as being on MST all year long. Shereth 15:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Population - Bad Source

I removed the following:

At the time of Arizona’s acquisition by the United States in 1848, fewer than 1,000 people of Hispanic origin lived in Arizona.

The ref given was http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/34807/Arizona Arizona (state, United States)]. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Here's the problems, specifically:

• The very same page claims Arizona is still only "sparsely populated". This page is about the whole state; not some of the more vacant counties within it. Sure, Arizona has some really sparse spots, but most larger states do. Additionally, I don't know who's running britannica.com these days, but considering Arizona has one of the top-five most populated cities in the entire United States, the only possible explanations for such an absurd claim are either malice, total ignorance, or simply recycling horribly outdated information over and over and over again. Arizona's been well populated for quite some time, but it hasn't always been so.
• It is well known that older population counts (like, from way back when Arizona was "sparsely populated" - you know, before the construction of a very nice nuclear reactor made air conditioning affordable here!) often simply chose to ignore people who, while being quite alive, didn't have the "right paperwork" to get counted.
• Considering In 1853 the land below the Gila River was acquired from Mexico and that in 1850, the population of Tucson alone was estimated at a nice, even 400 - every last one of them a mexican, because it wasn't part of the United States yet - and considering that the Pima, by then spanish speaking, living even further south of Tucson, but still within Arizona, had been there all along, it's silly to think that the total number of people with "hispanic origins"
• Remember, "Hispanic" isn't a "race". This isn't some politically correct talking point either - Nobody has ever said it was a race in the first place! "Hispanic" includes natives of Europe (Spain), Asia (Phillipines), and North America (Mexico). The only real all-spanning definition of having "Hispanic origins" seems to be that a persons parents speak Spanish and identify with a Spanish speaking cultural area, whatever area that may be. A more formal definition, still including all the areas I've mention, states something to the effect of "Areas once ruled by Spain". So, yeah. There were almost certainly more than 1000 "Hispanics" in the area that would be a part of Arizona, once the entire thing was actually aquired.
• The removed section also is incorrect because not all of Arizona was acquired in 1848.

There, all better, all gone :-)

Your analysis of the source constitutes pure original research. The information is sourced and should not have been removed; it will be reverted. Shereth 15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if the numbers are inaccurate, they have a valid source and should be left in the article. Please find a citable source, one that can be proven to be more reliable than the former, that mentions a more correct tally. Until then the number should remain. 72.219.56.68 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)