Talk:Golden Gate Park

message: This seems like an awfully complete article to have sprung up in one sitting.  I'm not saying it's a copyright violation, because I can't find from where it's copied, but I'm suspicious. Gentgeen 07:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wetman cleared up my concerns.  It's not a copyvio. Gentgeen 00:15, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Definitely taken as a compliment! Wetman 01:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm ...

message: Under "Statues," this article currently says, "During the George Floyd protests, on June 19, 2020, demonstrators toppled or otherwise vandalized the statues of Catholic missionary Junípero Serra, Francis Scott Key (author of the lyrics to The Star-Spangled Banner), Ulysses S. Grant, Cervantes, Don Quixote and Sancho Panza." Is "demonstrators" the right word here? Certainly it wasn't an organized demonstration. It wasn't sponsored by an organization. It wasn't announced beforehand so that people could attend if they wished. It was a warm day in SF in which, over the course of several hours, some drunk raging louts went on a spree. If these really were demonstrators, it's unclear what they were demonstrating for or against. What did they mean by vandalizing statues of fictional characters Don Quixote and Sancho Panza and the author who created them? If they were truly demonstrating against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd's death, why did they tear down the statue of the man who led the Union armies in the Civil War? I think we need a better word than "demonstrators." I prefer "miscreants" myself. Any ideas? Chisme (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonstrators, Miscreants, Hooligans, a Mob, Malefactors, Lowlifes? 

message: Perhaps we should create :Template:Golden Gate Park as a navigation template? Seems like a helpful way to connect all related entries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation template for the park? 

message: Under the heading "Structures & buildings: Prayer Book Cross", the following appeared: "Historian Richard White described the Prayerbook cross as a 'monument to white supremacy' erected in 'an attempt to enshrine Anglo-Saxonism' during a time 'when, with deep worries about the racial identity of a heavily immigrant city, many Californians became crazed over the long-dead Drake'." I have removed this, for a number of reasons. First, because these claims do not have any relevance in an article about the park. It is a stretch, to say the least, that claims made by one person about Sir Francis Drake's conduct four centuries ago, are important to consider when discussing the sculpture of a Celtic cross in a park. Second, because White's claim is contentious, as he made them in the NY Times article provided here as a source. It is worth quoting from that article at length, to give a sense of how tendentious White's argument is (emphases are mine):"In 1894 Episcopalians commemorated Drake’s landing in California and what they saw as the first Protestant service in North America by erecting a giant sandstone cross — a 'sermon in stone' — intending it to be visible from ships entering the Golden Gate. Trees gradually grew up around it; many of its inscriptions have weathered and some have disappeared. But the cross — a denominational symbol in a public park — has a lot to tell us. The invisibility of Drake’s Cross may make it the most fitting monument to white supremacy in the country. Quite unintentionally, the sandstone cross records the persistence of racial ideologies and their decline, their viciousness and their vacuousness, the horrors they condone and the ridiculousness of what they commemorate. It is an attempt to enshrine Anglo-Saxonism, which is a late-19th-century variant of white supremacy....The inscriptions on the cross — those that still can be read — celebrate Drake as part of the beginning of a Protestant Anglo-Saxon America. He was the first Protestant, the first Englishman, the first missionary on 'our' coast, in 'our' country, on 'our' continent...After robbing, raping and murdering his way up the Pacific Coast, Francis Drake reached California..."If, as White asserts, trees now obscure the cross and the inscriptions are barely visible, what possible relevance could those inscriptions (which White pointedly avoids quoting) have to an article about the features of a park? Was the cross used for Klan rallies? Was it annually sprinkled with the blood of innocent babies? Of course not. And what makes the cross "Anglo-Saxon"? The fact that it was commissioned by the Episcopal Church -- also known as "Anglicanism" and "the Church of England". So unless it is White's assertion that the Episcopal Church is intrinsically "white supremacist", his "evidence" would seem to be in search of a point. Likewise, the claims that "Anglo-Saxonism...is a...variant of white supremacy" is bogus. Anglo-Saxonism was nothing more than a cultural phenomenon in which the members of a particular ethnic group expressed pride in that culture; it is no different from the "La Raza" movement, or the "Pan-African" movement of the 20th century which (according to the article on Pan-Africanism) sought to "'unify and uplift' people of African descent", and included the "belief that 'African people, both on the continent and in the diaspora, share not merely a common history, but a common destiny'..." Some key figures in that movement went further, such as Kwame Nkrumah who is frequently cited in the article. Nkrumah advocated racial separation; that black Africans should be the only inhabitants of Africa, and that only they should hold power there. Shall we infer from those notions that Pan-Africanism was "black supremacist"? -or more reasonably, rather that it was, as the article states, an attempt to uplift and provide cohesion, just as "Anglo-Saxonism" was? No matter what one's view on Anglo-Saxonism or Pan-Africanism might be, they are not relevant to the mention of a cross sculpture in a park.Furthermore, White's claims about Drake are outliers among Drake historians, most of whom praise him for specifically preventing the "robbing, raping and murdering" that White claims. For example, Roger McCoy, Professor Emeritus at the University of Utah, and author of "On the Edge: Mapping North America's Coasts" writes this: "The Spanish at the time labeled 'El Draque' a cruel and ruthless pirate. But his victims gave an opposite account, reporting his humanity and generosity...a surprising assessment for someone who desecrated churches, stole their sacred vessels, and destroyed statues and paintings. His main redeeming trait was that of not allowing raping or killing in cold blood...Before departing Drake gave gifts of coins, clothing, and weapons to each crewman of the 'Cacafuego' [nb: a Spanish ship Drake captured.] One captured Spanish captain wrote that Drake was one of the greatest living mariners, who treats his men with affection and the men show great respect  for him...Drake stayed in this location [Drake's Bay] for five weeks, during which time the friendly and welcoming Miwok tribe offered Drake their symbols of respect: a mantle of skins, a wood scepter, and a cap with crown-like feathers. Drake interpreted these gestures as a sign the Indians wanted him to be their king."(emphasis mine) Peter Whitfield and John Sugden -- both having written definitive biographies of Drake -- likewise depict Drake's conduct with others, while exploring the Pacific Coast, as exemplary. "Robbing, raping and murdering", as White claims? NO. White appears to be alone in his claims, and since no sources for them are available in the NY Times article which is provided as this article's source, it cannot be treated as a settled matter. Even if White's claims were relevant to the article on the structures and buildings of Golden Gate Park (which they patently are not), unless White's claims can be substantiated and that substance made accessible for confirmation, they should not be included here. Bricology (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The passage doesn't belong. It's commentary. Thanks for the background research. Chisme (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of contentious, poorly-sourced, irrelevant and possibly libelous passage