Talk:History of San Francisco

Why?
Why does the History of San Francisco, California article exist? Is there a plan afoot to transfer all of the history from the San Francisco, California article to this one? Stepp-Wulf 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Yes; this is standard practice when articles get so big (see History of Los Angeles, California) - I'm just waiting for consensus on the shorter summary that will take its place. See Talk:San Francisco, California and the proposed text at Talk:San Francisco/Proposed History summary. Meanwhile, nothing is linking to this article. &#8592;Hob 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Redstone (building) article and 1934 General Strike
greetings, I'm adding the Redstone (building) and want to encourage including coverage of the 1934 General Strike into the article. Benjiboi 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please format this so it can be seen properly. Why does it say that San Francisco is a focal point for "Punk and thrasher rock" in the 1980s and 1990s when San Francisco had many punk and post punk bands during the 1970s? The Dead Kennedys formed in San Francisco in the late 70s as well as Romeo Void and several other local bands. Don't make San Francisco look as if it is some trend following city. We (Like New York) are a trend setting city and should be given credit for doing so. We're not Seattle. ;)


 * And since the folding of the Mabuhay Gardens, just where did this punk scene go? How many punk clubs in SF at current moment - if none, then that's over and should be mentioned.  Also, if a person of historic note is already in Wikipedia due to being famous in SF - they should not be orphaned, they should be linked to this article.  If it's going to exist, it should not ignore what has already been done in the rest of Wikipedia.--LeValley 22:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Emperor Norton
Why is there no mention of Emperor Norton in this article? I feel that he deserves recognition in the history of this great and weird city! - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because this is the most sanitized history of San Francisco ever written.--LeValley 22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Justin Herman
"In the 1950s San Francisco mayor George Christopher hired Harvard graduate Justin Herman to head the redevelopment agency for the city and county" If you read his wiki article, it says he was a screenwriter from the East Coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.55.6 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Vice
An interesting aspect of San Francisco seems to be omitted here. During the late 1800s (and I think even the early 1900s) San Francisco was one of the nation's leading centers of vice in the nation. In fact I have seen sources saying that it was the leading gaming center (New Orleans and San Antonio being the next closest contenders).

I realize that this aspect of history may not be what the community is most proud of but this was a major part of the city's economy and culture.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be more about vice. Not contemporary vice, since all cities have that, but the special kind of vice that San Francisco had from the days of the Gold Rush until WWI (and in a much more subdued version until WWII). For much of the 20th century, San Franciscans took pride in their city having once been the vice capital of the world. However, the vice was mostly restricted to specific areas. For example, the Barbary Coast was a red-light district for sailors. The Tenderloin was an entertainment district for millionaires, with show-girls imported from Paris. The gold miners carried pounds of gold dust in their pockets, which was used as money. Chinatown had opium dens. Lots of places had gambling. (Faro was the most popular game of chance.) To to best of my knowledge, none of this stuff was illegal until WWI. There were also some dens of iniquity in the Outside Lands. San Franciscans have a word for people who don't take pride in this part of their city's history: they're called newcomers. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of 20,000 for first indigeneous people is way early
I can't find a single citation that places any homo sapiens in the San Francisco area at 20,000. The oldest archaeological sites in North America are at about 18,000BP with one very controversial place in Alaska older than that. If anyone can find a reference for this, please change it back - but I'm changing it to be in keeping with Skowronek, Margolin, Gear and others published in juried or academic publications.--LeValley 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What establishes the rapid economic change and diversity?
I'm sure this is true (but it's true of many, many places) - where's the citation for this? Is San Francisco ore (or less) diverse than El Paso or Los Angeles or Fresno or New York? What are the criteria for establishing diversity here? New York City strikes me as very diverse - is there some reputable citation that shows SF to be as diverse as NYC? --LeValley 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Huge problem with this article
The counterculture section covers the history of the 1960's and 70's.

This is POV because the 2 decade period was not just counterculture. In essence, all the history of 20 years is ignored except for the counterculture topic.

What probably happened is that the editor writing this didn't step back and look at the big picture.

No worries, this can be fixed easily with more writing.

I don't know about the history of this city but I do know that cities have more history in 2 decades than just one topic. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The following events happened in San Francisco in the 60s and 70s:


 * 1965: completion of restoration of the Palace of Fine Arts (designed by Bernard Maybeck for the Panama–Pacific International Exposition)


 * 1967 construction begins on Market Street Subway (permanently turning the mid-Market corridor into a slum)


 * 1968 The Mother of All Demos


 * 1969: Exploratorium opens


 * 1973: BART opens in San Francisco []

Labor
Why is the labor section written as is? There is very little about San Francisco in the California history pages that are given as links. It seems that this section should be developed on this page.Cleshne (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

October 28, 1868 Earthquake

 * San Francisco Morning Chronicle front page of October 28, 1868 Earthquake (Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley) - EARTHQUAKE HISTORY, 1769-1989	 By William L. Ellsworth

Timeline of San Francisco
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of San Francisco. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331220353/http://www.sfgov.org/site/visitor_index.asp?id=8091 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/visitor_index.asp?id=8091
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sf311.org/index.aspx?page=262

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of San Francisco. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002014220/http://www.yerbabuenagardens.com/history.html to http://www.yerbabuenagardens.com/history.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5rVT9031H?url=http://sf311.org/index.aspx?page=262 to http://sf311.org/index.aspx?page=262
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710072642/http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/moed/economic_strat/ExecutiveSummary_EconomicPerformanceReview.pdf to http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/moed/economic_strat/ExecutiveSummary_EconomicPerformanceReview.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503200734/http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn68.html to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn68.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Claim about San Francisco being the "largest American city west of the Mississippi River"
because it is untrue. St. Louis was larger during this timeframe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.242.134 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The source is clear on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

RR history
Nothing about the role of the early transcontinental railroads (esp. Central Pacific), built on graft and corruption, in the city's development? – Sca (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Manilatowm
the Urban renewal section clearly does not cover the entirety of the events taking place during the forced evictions of minorities during the renewal. for example Manilatown and the i-hotel. the protest in manila town and around the I hotel lasted for nearly a decade it even made national front-page news yet it is not even mentioned in the section. this I feel like should change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengboy08 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)