Talk:San Pedro Sula
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] History
These seems to be unreliable history facts for this article. San Pedro Sula (SPS) was never attacked by pirates. That is because the river that goes near SPS is not suitable for boat or ship travel. Besides the river has had always a blocked entrance through sea.Valdez007 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was attacked by pirates and burned. San Pedro didn't start out where it is today. its moved 3 times, with the current location being the third location. It was founded somewhere just south of Choloma on the then current Choloma river course (not the modern one, but an abandoned course), then moved out to be along the course of the Chamelecon River, was sacked in the 17th century; and as a result, was moved to where it is today. In the 16th and 17th C. the Ulua and Chamelecon rivers were navigable by ocean going boats and their mouth was not blocked. Indeed, until sometime in the 1570s or 80s the Chamelecon River was a tributary of the Ulua river, joining it somewhere around Tibombo. They split late in the 16th Century. Colonial documents address this by discussing building a barrier accross the mouth of the Ulua to stop ships from navigating up in in 1590, impounding contraband on ships that came from Cuba in the town today known as San Manuel in the 17th century, and so on. Apparently deforestation has cut back on the available water in both the Ulua and Chamelecon rivers. Rsheptak 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not to sound disrespectful, but where did you get the information? If it is true a reliable source must be cited and this short paragraph must be added to the article if it is true. I live in San Pedro Sula and that is why I ask. Valdez007 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No problem...most of this is unpublished research supported by documents in the Archivo General de Indias and the Archivo General de CentroAmerica. I got some of the original information from the geographer William Davidson (now retired, from LSU). The info about the two rivers being joined is from a 1980s PhD dissertation by Kevin Pope (Stanford). There are lots of documents that talk about ship traffic, even ocean going Spanish ships (though I suspect only small ones) on the Ulua and Chamalecon rivers in the 16th and 17th centuries. If you haven't guessed, I do research on colonial Honduras, especially the 16th and 17th centuries. I know San Pedro well from being involved in the last 27 years of archaeological research in the valley around it. Rsheptak 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sounds very interesting, but Wikipedia has a very strict policy against original research. If it isn't in a published reliable source then we can't include it here.Notmyrealname 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This stuff has been published in local newspapers, eg La Prensa which has extensively covered the history of this town and the rest of the country and therefore citing isnt a problem, SqueakBox 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Don't worry about it. There are plenty of published sources, even in English. Its just that as a historian I prefer to cite original documents rather than some published perversion of them, even my own. Wikipedia is not a scholarly endeavor. Rsheptak 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] What This Page Should Contain
As I look at this page today, I'm reminded of the yellow pages in a phone book, listings of malls, schools, etc. Is this really something you want on this page to tell the world about San Pedro Sula? If you're one of the people who added this information, I'd love to understand why you think its important to have it on the page. Thanks. Rsheptak 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- True it does look like a Yellow page book. Yet, since there is little history information, some tourist information is also welcomed. I added the Places of Interests, but I did not include the list of schools.Valdez007 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other
I removed two pieces of information from the entry. It is not true that San Pedro became called San Pedro Sula within 5 years of its founding. There are a couple of issues with this designation, and its timing. Today there are two (not one) Sula valleys in Honduras; the one that contains San Pedro Sula, and the one that contains Sula, next to the Quimistan valley to the west of Naco. The valley around San Pedro was not called the Sula valley in the colonial period; it had no name. Calling it the sula valley is a fairly recent historical event.
San Pedro de Puerto De Caballos became San Pedro de las Minas de Sula which eventually became San Pedro Sula, but a geographer who researched the many many transformations of the city's name in colonial documents, tells me this didn't happen until the 18th century. My research is primarily on the 16th and 17th centuries and I have not found a document that refers to it as San Pedro Sula.
I reinstated the bit about the railroad which I had initially removed. My understanding is that the railroad was never important in the history of San Pedro outside of the context of the banana companies. It received scant attention in Perfecto Bobadilla's Monografia geografica e historica San Pedro Sula, IV Centenario de su Fundacion 1536-1936. I'll reread the section on the railroad in Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's book Biografia de San Pedro Sula: 1536-1954 and use his understanding as guidance for future edits about the railroad.
Anyone know where the population figures in the box came from? They seem low. In 1999, the city's population was already 515,206 with an annual growth rate (1994-1999) of 4.4% so I find it strange that the 2006 population would be 517,000. Source for 1999 data: http://www.infohn.com/sisde/home.htm. Rsheptak 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds better to put the older dates till we get more reliable new ones, SqueakBox 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EscudoSPS.gif
Image:EscudoSPS.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Popularity of Footbal Teams
The articles for Espa#a and Marathon, had a qualifier stating that Marathon was the main team of the city. "Main" seems like a WP:WEASEL word for obvious reasons. I'd think that the author meant "most popular", which I was about to enter, but then I wouldn't have anything to back it up. When I lived there it was always thought that Marathon was more popular than Espa#a. Does anyone have a link to a source that could be added to put the statement back? Wikihonduras 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] pictures
there are two photos of The municipal palace and tow photos of the cathedral. I think one of each would suffice. (Sunsetterxxx (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
- Agreed, good point. I removed the two old snapshot photos (which I put in the article back when we had nothing else); those are already on Commons anyway. I added a link to the image gallery on Commons. (If you have other photos you have taken and are willing to free license, please upload them to the Commons.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
