Talk:Golden Gate Park

John McLaren link is incorrect

The link is to John McLaren), a Scottish politician. John McLaren the Golden Gate park superintendent was born in Scotland and lived from. A good source for a bio of John McLaren, the park superintendent: http://www.rpts.tamu.edu/pugsley/McLaren.htm

Japanese Tea Garden

This deserves a mention in this section plus a link to its own expanded section. I am a vistor to San Francisco and not a garden expert so I believe my view is unbiased. The gardens are truely noteworthy for their beauty.

Funny

Doesn't belong in the article, but a Mike Gravel video played on the Daily Show was clearly filmed at Spreckels Lake: [1]

Demonstrators, Miscreants, Hooligans, a Mob, Malefactors, Lowlifes?

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)

Big Rec, Little Rec, Recreation Grounds

• 7th Avenue and Lincoln Way
• Big Rec - baseball and softball field
• Little Rec - baseball and softball field
• "Postcard: Recreation Grounds, Golden Gate Park". Card Cow .com. San Francisco: Richard Behrendt. 1909.

24.7.56.99 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• "San Francisco Landmark #181: Lawn Bowling Clubhouse and Greens, Golden Gate Park, Founded 1901". NoeHill. Mr. John McLaren, Superintendent of Golden Gate Park, laid out a green in the west corner of the Recreation Grounds. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• California Historical Society (1906). "[Postcard. No. 891.]". Calisphere. Cardinell-Vincent Co. Refugee camp in Recreation Grounds of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California, after the disaster of April 18th, 1906. This view shows the buildings of the Affiliated Colleges in the distance.
• MacFarlane, Angus. "Pioneer Park: San Francisco's Forgotten First Ball Park". Found SF .org. Recreation Grounds (1868), 25th Street and Folsom Street

• Recreation Park (San Francisco)

• "Camp No. 5, Rue A. Recreation Grounds, Golden Gate Parc, San Francisco. Mai 1906. [Golden Gate Park.]". Calisphere.
• Doc B. "The Early History of Golden Gate Park". The Third Self. Golden Gate Park Stadium, 1910 (now known as the Polo Fields). Photo from OpenSFHistory / wnp33.03913.jpg

24.7.56.99 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Navigation template for the park?

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)

Removal of contentious, poorly-sourced, irrelevant and possibly libelous passage

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)

I agree. The passage doesn't belong. It's commentary. Thanks for the background research. Chisme (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Unmove

I moved this back to Golden Gate Park as this was moved a few months ago for seemingly no good reason at all – let alone with any discussion. Golden Gate Park is the shorter name, and we do this for – for example – Central Park (where Central Park, New York is the redirect). The park in San Francisco is clearly the primary topic here and so there's no need for disambiguation, evidenced by the fact that the only other parks with a similar name are Golden Gate Canyon State Park and Golden Gate Highlands National Park. The former is a pretty small, marginally notable park, and neither of these appear to be colloquially called "Golden Gate Park" (whereas this is the real, actual name – both official and colloquial – of the one in San Francisco). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)