Talk:History of Phoenix, Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barry Goldwater[edit]

I met Barry Goldwater once in my life-- back in 1958 when I was in high school in Tucson and went on a trip to Washington. He took me to lunch in the Senate dining room and I still remember the navy bean soup he recommended. I suppose that anecdote is on the same level as Goldwater serving as a ring bearer at a wedding when he was 3 years old. In my opinion he is the single most prominent person in the history of Phoenix, and deserves our attention for his business operations, his work in city government, his building and leading the Republican Party in the state, and his high national visibility as a powerful senator and a dramatic presidential candidate. None of that is in the Phoenix article except the ring bearer story, which I took out. I will try to add some more material, using the excellent biography of the senator by Robert Goldberg (1997) and very good books by experts like Rick Perlstein (2009). Rjensen (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion regarding his prominence, which is why I included the citation regarding the ringbearer story (which is included nowhere else in Wikipedia articles), tying him to the very foundations of the state. However, the section seems to break the flow of the history. Also, I can find no precedent on any other city history pages, although not a single one of the major US cities I checked was graded higher than a "B" class. I think we need to break the paragraph up and insert the pertinent facts at the appropriate places within the body of the history. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
the ringbearer story tells zero about Phoenix (yes someone was the first to get married after statehood in Phoenix/ Tucson/ Yuma/ Prescott etc etc....) It is very low level trivia. It tells nothing much about Barry--for example, it does not mention was was NOT a Jewish ceremony because the father Baron Goldwater was ostracized by the Jewish community when he married in the a Protestant. (shades of "Fiddler on the Roof") Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I already agreed with your assessment of the ringbearer episode. When I asked for discussion I was speaking about integrating the Goldwater information into the body of the text.Onel5969 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It's now in a separate section. I think that works better than splitting the sentences up. A section devoted to one person is in fact done in other history of city articles. For example, the history of Atlanta has 3 such sections, on mayors Jackson Young and Franklin. The history of Detroit article has 2 such sections on Henry Ford and Reinhold Niebuhr. History of Cleveland has one on Kucinich. History of Kansas City has ten of them! Rjensen (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for doing the research on the other city histories. As I said, I didn't have a problem with it being in its own section, just didn't see a precedent for it. Onel5969 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Civil War[edit]

Topics that deal with the history of Arizona but have virtually nothing to do with Phoenix can be passed over quickly. Like explorers who did not come through Phoenix. I think we should serve readers who are interested in the Phoenix area. That includes the Civil War era where only the USA was active in the Phoenix area (not the Confederacy). It neglected Phoenix and we can neglect them. :) Rjensen (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your philosophy, but not with your interpretation. Regarding the Civil War, while both sides were virtually non-existent in the Phoenix area, both sides did lay claim to it. To insinuate that only the North did, does readers a disservice, if not being outright misleading. Just because something is covered in another article, does not mean it has no place in this one. Regarding the explorers... their actual route is uncertain, and there are some who think the descriptions of their trip indicate that they almost certainly passed through the valley, hence my wording at the beginning of the section. I definitely agree about adding the info and citation from Sheridan. I'm going to revert back to the inclusion of the pertinent (imho) info about the Confederacy in that section. I'll leave it up to you regarding the explorers. I agree it is tenuous, but that (again imho) does not make it inconsequential. Onel5969 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
the text says both sides claimed it. The North actually built a fort that gave it control. There is no reason to include material in the Phoenix article that does not deal with Phoenix. As for the explorers, their importance is they left diseases behind (that killed off lots of natives) and claimed it for Spain. That gets covered. Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
But it does deal with Phoenix. You say so yourself, both sides claimed it. To only state that one side claimed it is misleading, regardless of the steps that either side took to enforce those claims. Onel5969 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the text should say that both sides claimed it, that Confeds ignored it and were nowhere nearby, but USA set up a fort & territorial govt that had actual power. There is no issue of "neutrality" here. (neutrality is a wiki rule that says when 2 reliable souerces disagree, we have to include both sides.) Rjensen (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
But that is two different points of view, the North made a claim, the South made a claim. The South also set up a government, in fact it had to flee at one point. To only refer to one is not per WK:NPOV. I inserted a brief sentence to boost the North's reaction to the claim.Onel5969 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Phoenix, Arizona[edit]

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Phoenix, Arizona. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)