Talk:Philadelphia/Archive 1

message: There is a contradiction in the article.  At the top of the article, it states that Philly was the second capital.  Later in the article, it says that Philly was the first capital.  This confusion might be due to whether or not New York City can be considered the first capital.
From http://www.nps.gov/inde/phila.html,
: The U.S. Government under the Constitution began in New York City on March 4, 1789. In 1790 it came to Philadelphia, the result of a compromise whereby Southern congressmen agreed to support Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's financial proposals in return for locating a permanent capital somewhere on the banks of the Potomac River. Philadelphia was named temporary capital while the new Federal city was being prepared.
Also, from http://www.yorkcity.org/history/index.htm
: As Yorkers know, their City was the first Capital of the United States, it was the birthplace of the Articles of Confederation and it was here that the words "The United States of  America" were first spoken.
:  In September of 1777 the Continental Congress, under threat of the advancing British, moved the location of the colonies' central government from Philadelphia to Lancaster. Since the State of Pennsylvania's Government was also located in Lancaster, officials decided that a move across the Susquehanna would separate the two sufficiently and the Continental Congress set up shop in the Town of York.
: It was in York that the Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving, and signed the French Treaty of Alliance. All of these events occurred in the nine months York remained Capital of the United States - until June 27, 1778. 
Also, note the following dates...
:July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence signed
:September 1777 Continental Congress moved the location of the colonies' central government from Philadelphia to Lancaster
:November 15, 1777 Articles of Confederation agreed to by the Continental Congress
:March 1, 1781 Articles of Confederation in effect after ratification by Maryland
:1785 Congress convenes in New York City.
:Sept. 17, 1787 Constitution signed in Philadelphia
:March 4, 1789 U.S. Government under the Constitution began in New York City
There were many cities that acted as "temporary capitals" for the colonies/U.S.  Here's the complete list in chronological order that I pieced together (based on where Congress, Continental or Constitutional, was located).  I think this list is complete, except for a few missing dates.
:1. Philadelphia July 4, 1776
:2. Baltimore, December 1776, fleeing the British
:3. Philadelphia, March 1777 
:4. Lancaster, PA, September 1777, for only one day?
:5. York, PA, September 1777, to use Susquehanna river as defense against British
:6. Princeton, NJ
:7. Annapolis, MD
:8. Trenton, NJ
:9. New York, NY
:10. Philadelphia
:11. Washington, D.C.
I think these are all the places that have any claim of being a capital of the United States.  Of these, New York City and Philadelphia have the strongest claims of being the first capital.  One question to answer is what constitutes being the first capital.  Do we start the clock at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Article of Confederation, or the Constitution.  I think that the Constitution would be the key event because before that, America was really a group of independent colonies rather than a nation.
Also, I believe that New York City did not have the physical infrastructure (buildings, etc.) in place to be an actual capital for the newly formed government.  I think it acted more as a temporary meeting place.  Philadelphia did have a lot of infrastructure for the federal government because it was trying to woe the government into making Philly the permanent capital.
In my opinion, Philly should be considered the first capital of the U.S. because it had actual capital buildings that were used by the government after the signing of the Constitution.  The fact that Philly was also used as the first capital of the colonies is not relevent in my opinion.
However, I am not a historian or an expert in early American history, so I don't want to update the article myself.  Also, from my research, there seems to be a lot of contention about which city is the first capital.  Would a historian or professor of history please comment on this issue and update the page.
Daniel Barbalace
: See http://www.clearthought.info for email address.
=== Also Consider ===
Technically, George Washington was not the first president of the United States.  There were presidents before him under both the Continental Congress (President_of_the_Continental_Congress) and the Articles_of_Confederation.  However, today we don't count these presidents when assigning orders to the presidents (Washington as 1, Regan as 40, Clinton as 42, etc.).  If we start counting presidents from the Constitution, doesn't it also make sense to start counting capitals from there?
- Dan
:Danel B. and Dan, good discussion I say, thanks you both. I think need more referance, then deside whether cut remark Phila. ever capital of US. Is there def of "capital" means? I think it mean more than gov only wait place while run away. Otherwise, Air Force 1 is US capital sometimes. GW he not 1st prez? If put that, flunk citisen test! What name of real 1st Prez, please? BillFlis 01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point being that we're getting a little far off from the subject of the article. How about a couple of whole new articles on "Capitals of the United States" and "Presidents of the United States", where all these confusing facts can be laid out in some detail. BillFlis 12:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs correction 

message: Technically, George Washington was not the first president of the United States.  There were presidents before him under both the Continental Congress (President_of_the_Continental_Congress) and the Articles_of_Confederation.  However, today we don't count these presidents when assigning orders to the presidents (Washington as 1, Regan as 40, Clinton as 42, etc.).  If we start counting presidents from the Constitution, doesn't it also make sense to start counting capitals from there?
- Dan
:Danel B. and Dan, good discussion I say, thanks you both. I think need more referance, then deside whether cut remark Phila. ever capital of US. Is there def of "capital" means? I think it mean more than gov only wait place while run away. Otherwise, Air Force 1 is US capital sometimes. GW he not 1st prez? If put that, flunk citisen test! What name of real 1st Prez, please? BillFlis 01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point being that we're getting a little far off from the subject of the article. How about a couple of whole new articles on "Capitals of the United States" and "Presidents of the United States", where all these confusing facts can be laid out in some detail. BillFlis 12:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also Consider 

message: Great page, should we create a list of online resources local for Philadelphia? --Josowski 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm no we should not, see WP:NOT. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: What's up with deleting the names of Philadelphians that you haven't heard of?  As an
example, Ed Bacon is a prominent and well respected urban designer, author of "Design
of Cities" which is still taught in architecture schools and has been influential in
the urban landscape of many cities.  I understand that his son, Kevin, has appeared in some movies.  Ed Bacon had much more to do with what philadelphia is like today than a cute movie actor who happened to be born there.  I'd think that when discussing a major
urban area, someone who had half a century worth of influence on the design of the city is worth listing, more so than a sports player or a musician or an actor.
:I second that completely. It's ridiculous to delete him as a "superfluous detail" if you know anything about cities. I've reinserted him for the second time. People, just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's not significant. This is a major figure in the history of modern American cities.~Sylvain 11/15/05
::No it is superflourous detail, in fact its almost completely off topic. Yes he is important in design to the city, but he's not mentioned in that way.  The paragraph is bascially two sentence biography. It contains his birth and death dates, it mentions a book he's written, might as well mention his son. If you would like to rewrite the section into who helped design the city, please do so. (Include references if you can) However, I will remove what is written here after I give a chance for a response (a few days). It is superfluous, it is off topic and it is rediculous to have an article about Philadelphia, PA suddenly turn into an article about Edmund Bacon before returning back to Philadelphia, PA. MechBrowman 03:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, i think the adding of a mention of Bacon, epically in how was his visions and plans in the 50'sand 60's have shaped the Philadelphia that we have today in it's physical makeup, is an important detail. The the way it is written, is totally out of context, and looks more like an advisertiment for the book, which has less to do with what was actually done in the city, but rather then a collection of his experience of his work into a philosophy of what he thinks city planning should be. Either way the paragraph needs to be rewritten, and i guess I'll take care of it. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats probably a better way to deal with the content than me just removing it. MechBrowman 05:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that it would, and as soon as i get donw with the "five" other things i waanted to get to i'll get to it. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the changes, so it is less an obit now. Still could use more improvement and clarification. I also removed the caption text from the top of the section , which looks like it should have been in the picture, but even then it would have been a bit long a drawn out. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed Bacon

message: The picture captioned "Center City Philadelphia" consists of a road with a few buildings in the distance. BO-RING!!! Is this really the most picturesque view anyone could come up with? Apart from anything else the picture could have been taken anywhere that has roads and buildings. Can somebody please replace it with an image that is a) uniquely Philadelphian and b) nicer to look at? Lee M 02:04, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the picture could be better, it seems rather overcast and drab, though that's how it really looks much of the time, but otherwise this picture does capture the distinctive, east-looking view of the Philly skyline, clearly showing One and Two Liberty Place, City Hall (with William Penn aloft), and so on, not just "a few buildings buildings."  It's as distinctively Philadelphian as a NYC skyline shot showing the Empire State building and, formerly, the Twin Towers would be distinctively NYC.  So I think it should stay until we get a nicer-looking skyline shot.  Although it might indeed be good to have pictures of the Museum as well.  There's already an old drawing of Independence Hall, having a new photograph would be redundant. 68.162.81.209 21:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The article mentions that Philadelphia hasn't had a major championship since 1983. I thought the Phillies went to the World Series in 1993 even though they lost to the Blue Jays. Also the 76ers played in the NBA Finals in 2001 even though they lost. I think the article should have said Philadpelphia hasn't won a championship since 1983.
Spikebrennan 16:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports