This is an archive of past discussions about Arizona. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just reading the section on climate in Phoenix. As it is getting hotter I find this sentence hard to believe, "The summer months of May through August bring a dry heat ranging from 90–100°F (32–38°C)". The website weather.com has a projected high temperature of 98°F tomorrow and it's only May 1st. Being a native for over 20 years I'd have to say the summer temperature range is usually more something like 95°F-115°F. Maybe 15°F doesn't seem to be that big of a deal but you can definitely feel it.
Agreed, I adjusted it to 120 being more accurate..
I adjusted it some more. August dry? LOLWUT? in the summer of 2006 we had an 82 degree dewpoint - I added a reference to wunderground's record of the airport sensor (the official city center for weather measurement, apparently). BTW If you google "highest dewpoint", the record seems to be either 93 or 95, and a lot of weather buffs are claiming their own personally experienced highs are in the seventies - in other words, it gets brutally moist here for a short period too! Zaphraud (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that's New Mexico. Arizona as a whole has no official language, although large chunks do, for example the official language of the Navajo Nation, which includes a very significant portion of Arizona in the north, is Navajo; the official language of the Tohono O'odham Nation, which takes up a very significant portion in the south, is Tohono O'odham, the official language on Hopi, an enclave in the Navajo reservation, is Hopi. Other large tracts of land with official languages include the San Carlos Apache and White Mountain Apache reservations which border one another, whose official language is Western Apache ("Coyotero Apache"), the Havasupai reservation whose official language is Havasupai, and the Walapai Nation whose official language is Walapai. In fact, the Havasupai Reservation is to my knowledge the only Indian reservation in the US where every single person knows the language fluently, this is partially due to the fact that most of the people there live at the bottom of a canyon. --Node 22:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Arizona's official language is English (Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution) but most of the provisions of Article 28 is unenforcable. The Arizona Supreme Court deemed the English enforcement sections of Article 28 unconstitutional on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (US Constitution) grounds. KeoniPhoenix 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As of November 8th 2006, English is the official language for Arizona. This was decided by Arizona Proposition 103 which was passed. --Kahnadex06:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Important cities and towns
I think it could use some major trimming. :-)
What might be some qualification for this list?
Population over 100,000.
Significant agriculture, industrial or tourisms to the world/USA and or Arizona economy.
Military, school/educational and or geographical importance.
Has access to a international border, airport, interstate highway and or major railway.
OR leave it as is, someone put it there, they most have thought it important.
Do you feel BOLD? Buster 15:38, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
--I put the list there. It is essentially every place, urbanized area or urban cluster with a population over 10,000 identified by the Census Bureau. Suburbs over 10,000 population are listed as sub-points.
How about the Ghost-town of Christmas, AZ?
removed text
I removed Ballet Arizona is the most notable and only professional ballet company in the country. This is eye-poppingly untrue. Joyous 21:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think it was meant to be in the state. And I don't know why you took out the Irish dance stuff; was it untrue also? Blair P. Houghton 05:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article on the Irish dance thing just went through VfD, and consensus seemed to be that it was an advertisement. We usually delete links (or at the very least de-link) to deleted articles. Joyous 12:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Removed:
Spanish words "árida zona" ("arid zone"). This would be grammatically incorrect however, since in Spanish, the noun precedes the adjective
In Spanish it is possible for the adjective to precede the noun. "Árida zona" would sound old-fashioned, but it has always been correct. With some adjectives it is even mandatory to place them before the noun (the translation of "a great man" into Spanish is "un gran hombre". "Un hombre grande" would mean "a big man").
This comment does not belong on this page, but on the main page for Mormonism or a page about Mormon temples. The construction of the temple in and of itself may be an effect of Mormon settlement, but it is not really relevant to state history as a whole. Mormon settlement has already been described in the preceding sentence. This "ta-da" about the temple is self-congratulatory — notice that the grammatical subject is the temple and not the state of Arizona's history or any other relevant item. Jeeves 18:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nahuatl?
Removed:
Nahuatl word "arizuma" ("silver bearing"). In 1736, a small silver-mining camp called "Real Arissona" by the Spanish was established near Arizonac.
I find this suspect, both because the Nahuatl word for "silver", IIRC, is iztacteocuitlatl, and because Nahuatl does not use the letter r. --Ptcamn16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
People
Should Glenn Spencer, a anti-illegal alien advocate be added to Arizona's Famous People ?
His organization,American Patrol is located here. It is dedicated to the deportation
of illegalaliens, especially of aliens who commit crimes in the US, belong to racist,
even terrorist organizations.Martial Law06:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Glenn found a racist site, and had published it. That site is:
http//:www.mexica-movement.org, and it has Mexican racists telling Whites to go back to Europe.Martial Law06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Arizona suena en ingles como arid zone, pero en uso comun seria simplemente aridland o secarral, zona no es sinonimo de zone.
The Political culture section seems quite biased both in language and choice of included information. Could this possible be re-written with the focus on the general political climate and not just how it relates to the Democratic party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.166.1 (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I clicked on the red link in the infobox for list of Arizona senators. I then proceded to make the list of Arizona senators. I saved and everyting but the link in the infobox still shows red. What's up with that? List of Senators of Arizona Everything in it seems to be fine. ONEder Boy08:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Daylight savings
I could be wrong, but I don't see a mention in the article about how the state doesn't observe Daylight Savings Time. If it isn't there, PLEASE INCLUDE IT! -Amit
Almost all of Arizona doesn't observe daylight savings time. (Exception is the part of Arizona in an Indian reservation that crosses state lines.) There's a great recent article from one of the Arizona papers that can easily be found on google news; but there would be copyright issues. Joncnunn20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been around on a military base and with military personnel. That "Flare dropping" story may work with the average Joe and Jane, but NOT with ex-military personnel and "military brats". Martial Law07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC):)
I'm near a Command Base and I've seen fighters, A-10s, bombers, tankers, transports, and NOT one had to drop flares to land at all. I am referring to the article in which a US National guard unit had to drop flares to land each and every time to land a plane. Martial Law07:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC):)
I was in Phoenix
While investigating this matter ( The Phoenix UFO Incident )myself, I was told that the National Guard "explanation", the govt. approved "explanation" were all lies. Some of the citizens insisted that they were ridiculed. I was also told other things as well, some of which may indicate sedition and rebellion should there be alien contact. Martial Law21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC):)
Okay, well I live in Phoenix. They weren't mocked or ridiculed by anyone who didn't already believe in UFO's. I saw them, they didn't look like anything special to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.164.97 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
IPA/Arizona
the IPA pronunciation of Arizona is only in English, a Spanish one needs to be added, Arizona is 1/4 latino and alongside english, spanish is the offical langauge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs).
Arizona does not have any official languages, though Spanish is spoken by 20% or more.
please dont remove the spanish transliteration. english and spanish are cooficial in arizona. it is in line with other articles see Louisiana or Bolivia
I can find no referencing indicating that Spanish is an official language of Arizona. Unless you can find one, there is no reason to have the Spanish name. Bolivia has the Spanish name because Spanish is an official language there. Louisiana is debatable; it doesn't have an official language, though it does officially recognize French. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. I was told I could request links in manner, and that if other editors chose to add them, then that was fine. A number did so, even without my request. The person who deleted the links even says he likes the site and only deleted them because I added them myself.KelvinSmith (talk·contribs)
Sorry folks, if I've incurred Jamie's wrath. As it stands it's not for Jamie or Kelvin to decide if this link belongs in this article. Please try it out. I think you'll find it unique and entertaining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KelvinSmith (talk • contribs).
As today being the day after Arizona's 95th year as a State, I think we should begin incorporating the planning of the 2012 Arizona Centennial Celebrations, as information is released. However, I'm not sure if just a brief paragraph should be placed here on this page and an entire new article developed on the Arizona Centennial. Anyone else's thoughts? CascadiaTALK|HISTORY21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Vieja California?
Although I haven't spent too much time studying the historical political geography of Mexico, I do not recall in my geographical studies and private research hearing about Vieja California. Could Jinmex please quote (translated and untranslated) direct and unadulterated quote from the source mentioned regarding Vieja California. I request both so that I can do a private translation of my own to make sure they jive. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing, the editor who added it seemed to have some trouble with the wording, eg. he kept duplicating the sentence about the cession, when it turned out his real intent was to blank out the mention of the fact that the US paid Mexico a small sum for the land in 1848. (Why blank this info?) But looking at the history, the very first incarnation of his edit said the name of the Mexican state was 'Sonora', then after it wa reverted and it reappeared a minute later, it read 'Vieja California'... Maybe 'Sonora' is what he meant, and he somehow got confused? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure on the editors reasoning on blanking that info. I do have some theories based on my own personal research, but I'll hold back on sharing that per WP:AGF. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now it is changed to Nueva California aka Alta California, and the citation has changed yet again (still nothing that can be clicked and verified instantaniously). I'm beginning to think the assertions are somewhat dubious. All other references to the area that I've read in the past refered to this area as the Mexican Frontier, as it was sparsly populated and loosly organized. I'm going to have to request a quote from User:Jinmex yet again. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
These were not mere territories, but states with their proper governments. In Nueva España, the province in question was called Sonora. After the foundation of independent Mexico in 1821, the State was called Nueva or Alta California. The purchase of 1853 was of the State of Sonora. For easy reference, see in the Wiki-Files, where it is called Alta California. Also, it is incorrect, that Mexico received 15 Million US-$ for the purchase of Arizona, the money was received for the entire State of Alta California as well as the State of Nuevo México. Jinmex14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I repeatedly received the request from user Cascadia to quote web-based sources. I believe mere web-based sources are inadequate documentation. As happens with the reference to the wiki-article Mexican-American War, editors begin to quote each other back and forth, without adding new information. The books I quoted are standard reference books also published in English (The Historia de México is originally published in English), and I believe that to be a more adequate source than a wiki or any other webpage. Jinmex15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Jinmex for the map, that is a good source. However, please stop removing information regarding payment for land after the cession, you can reword it a little, but there was a monitary transaction for the land aquired.
I fear the issue was a little more complex than a "monetary transaction for land acquired". Depending on the historical and political view point, it was not a purchase, but an occupation of a sovereign nation that was later "compensated" with a ridiculous amount. By the way, this was a viewpoint shared by many US citizens at the time, and Henry David Thoreau even went to prison over this war. But this issue really does not have to be resolved here, does it? I would suggest just dropping it and leaving it to pages like "Mexican Cession" and "Mexican-American War". Ulises Criollo15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The arguement, though is not whether it is considered a ridiculous amount or not, but simply the fact that a monitary transaction took place for the land. Removal of this information is simply attempting to rewrite history.CascadiaTALK|HISTORY15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. But the editorial question is -- do you really need to solve this issue here? This is an article about Arizona, it need not do justice to complex historical issues that can be represented elsewhere.Ulises Criollo16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, because the way the passage reads now does not accurately reflect the reality of the event. In my opinion, this removes a Neutral Point of View. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this aspect seems to be of such importance to you, may I invite you to familiarise yourself at greater depth with this episode of U.S. history? An interesting starting point might be Howard Zinn's publication "A People's History of the United States", which has a readable chapter on the U.S.-Mexican War. Jinmex18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I may not be able to quote verbatim the timeline of the U.S.-Mexican War, I assure you that I do have a good understanding of the events that unfolded. I only questioned your use of the Mexican state names because until today I do not recall seeing them elsewhere. I stood accurately corrected with a good source (your posting of the Map). Thank you for the suggestion, but I will respectfully decline in reading that publication. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if my remark sounded rather snide -- it was not meant to be. I believe that in light of the wall the U.S. are building along its Mexican frontier and in light of the present situation of Latinos in states like Arizona (see the incredibly biased section on "Illegal Immigration"), it is highly illuminating to take a look at the historical aspects of the relationship between the two countries. It's not about timelines and military moves, but about a historical context that reaches into the present and puts such seemingly irrelevant details as a token payment for an annexed territory into a larger perspective. Jinmex19:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there are issues about the War that have a much more historical context and bring up certain opinions depending on which side of the issue one is on. I recognize this in it's entirety, and respect the fact that those are there. If I recall correctly, the US Army in the Southwest was nearly obliterated and had not Santa Cruz (name not 100% sure of) been called back to Cuidad de Mexico to restore order, would've been able to hold off much longer against the US Army. Had that event not happened, I wouldn't be a Phoenecian. The point I'm making with this is just pointing out I understand the historical aspects, however, when an event happens, it happens, and to cover it up is doing an injustice. That is why when I rewrote the sentance, I tried not to say anything to the effect of "Mexico received a hefty sum" or "Plenty of cash for the land" because the facts are that they did not. However, the event did occur. Whether someone feels for or against it is irrelevent, per WP:NPOV. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me disagree one last time, then I'll shut up. 1. You are not a Phoenician because one general won and another lost a battle, but because successive US-adminstrations in Washington DC systematically worked to enlarge the US-territory at the cost first of Nueva España (Florida) and then of the new-founded Mexican Republic (Texas, California, Arizona, Nevada, etc., etc.). 2. There is no such thing as a historical fact. History is a narrative told from a certain viewpoint with certain interests regarding the present and the future. To realise this is to be able to articulate one's own interests in the present and the future. This is a rather far excursion, given the insignificance of the original intervention, and before it goes even further, I will leave it at that or suggest that we move it to a private discussion. Jinmex21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Illegal immigration is a highly contested issue. The section on the subject does not cite any of its sources and makes speculative connections, for instance on the relationsip between illegal immigration and crime. It remains unspecific in giving no numbers and few facts. It could be improved trying to name (and cite) different social groups and their positions on the matter to make it clear that the issue is debated and to be able to see who says what on the matter, by citing official statics on numbers of illegal immigrants and by naming the measures the state as well as racist organisations take against illegal immigration. Jinmex20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"The use of professional smugglers to ferry people across the border illegally is also increasing, see: people smuggling. Such smuggling operations are known to also often be associated with the cross-border illicit drug trade and have caused a wave of crime in Southwestern states." This portion, which you've refered to, does not make a direct relationship between illegal aliens and crime, instead the fact that Coyote organizations are frequently associated with illicit drug trade and other criminal activities. I'll see if I can dig up some statistics that will show the factual information. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to be more specific about who says what. "Proponents of the changes in policy argue..." neither makes it clear what the actual policy is, who these "proponents of changes" are, and what they propose instead. "Accurate numbers that can effectively support either side of the argument are rare..." -- from the text it did not become clear to me that there actually were two positions, and what they consisted in. In general, it seemed to me that the section takes one thing for granted: that illegal immigration is a problem that has to be dealt with. But that in itself is a disputed political position, isn't it? Since I am not from the area, I cannot contribute to improving this section, I can merely draw attention to these deficits and their implications. Jinmex20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The general consensus is that yes, illegal immigration is a problem that has to be dealt with. That is merely the general consensus. There is a vocal oppostion to this, primarily consisting of people from Hispanic decent, who feel there should be open borders. There is even an element of that latter group that wish to return Aztlan to Mexico. I'll see about making it less ambiguous. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism RE Mex/Am war
Looks like we've got some ideological fighters on our hands, folks. Another editor reverted several attempts to POV Vandalism in an attempt to proliferate a common misconception. You can check the diffs for yourself, I'll keep watch the best I can to help out the other editor. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As you so beautifully detailed in the discussion above, there are some historical facts not to be ignored. One of them being that the US occupied Mexico City and forced Mexico to give up almost half its territory. "Taking possession" is a nice euphemism that glosses over some inconvenient historical facts, and we are not going to do that, are we? Especially if the sadly misnamed article "Mexican-American War" spells out these very same facts. And please beware of the word "vandalism": the way you use this word is worthy of the best ideologue. Centauro del Norte20:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is supposed to remain adherent to WP:NPOV. Historians refer to the war as the "Mexican-American War". Although those south of the border may see it a certain way, and those north of the border see it another, an attempt to add anti-American rhetoric adds a POV. Stating the facts, that the US took possession of the land after the conflict is neutral, as it implies nothing more than the facts of the situation. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is US historians and US historians only who refer to this war as the "Mexican-American War", though it is good international custom to name the aggressor first. I believe en.wikipedia is an international project and a medium for all who speak English as a first or second language and should therefore make a serious attempt to take international historiography into account. Accounts that the US offered to buy territory from the Mexican government before occupying it have been greatly exaggerated and it represent a century-long attempt by US-historians to beautify a war of aggression that apparently continues to cause great uneasiness. Mexican historians represent the matter in a very different light which is just as legitimate as the US point of view -- Francisco Martín Moreno's México mutilado is only one recent booklength study of the matter. Historical facts are always positional. I believe it is the task of an international encyclopedia to integrate these conflicting positions and get beyond the various parochialisms to post-nationalist estimations that reflect the interests of a reader in India, Australia or Great Britain as much as those of a US reader. Ulises Criollo16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no such "good international custom" you speak of to "name an aggressor first" when naming wars! Where did you get that idea? There isn't even "international custom" on who the aggressor is for many wars! I think the name has more to do with euphony, for example Franco-Prussion war just rolls off the tongue more readily than "Prusso-French war" or "American-Mexican war" which sound awkward. The term "Franco-Prussian war" isn't meant to slight either side or to make any implicationabout who started the war, whatsoever. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Also from what I can tell from the interwikis, the Slavic languages and French are the only languages that call it "American Mexican war", all other languages with the exception of Iberian ones call it "Mexican American war". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Franco-Prussian War is correct, because it was Napoleon III. who declared this war. And as you can see from your own list, the number of languages that use the term US-Mexican War is quite considerable. British historians, by the way, also call it the US-Mexican War. Ulises Criollo20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I see it as highly hypocritical that you seek to promote Mexican historical account as accurate, and US historical account as inaccurate. I believe, from evidence I have seen both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that there is a calculated effort to assert certain beliefs that are held in Mexico as being accurate, and the United States accounts as inaccurate and highly biased (evidenced by the continued attempt to refer to the Mexican-American war as the "War of Northern Agression"). Although I am compelled to WP:AGF, I am further compelled to prevent any further effort of Reconquista (Mexico), whether it be by preventing Wikipeida from being a launching point of historically inaccurate or increadibly biased viewpoints, or by physical means. I am not assuming you are engaging in this sort of activity, merely that your actions mirror and come close to actions I have encountered in the past. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If I may point that out to you, I have been calling for a non-nationalist viewpoint, not the substitution of one form of provincialism for another. And please, do refrain from name-calling, misguided speculation about my motivation and the promotion of conspiracy theories. And by the way, what do you mean that you are "compelled to prevent Reconquista ... by physical means"? I am compelled by WP:AGF to not raise any further questions about your motivation for editing. Ulises Criollo20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I appologize if I came off harsher than intended, if I may clarify by "physical means" meant in the physical world, not threat of violence, etc., and I retract the statement. I do not recall where I called you a name, only stated I saw some hypocracy in your previous statement. My motivation for editing is to make sure that the article is as truthful as possible, and not edited in a way to assert any incorrect notion that the United States=Bad, Mexico=Good, ie leaving political opinions out of it as much as possible. Again, I appologize if I sounded much harsher than I intended. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 20:30, 23 March
2007 (UTC)
We are talking about an AMERICAN STATE here! We call the war what AMERICANS call it. Plus, those who win wars get to name the wars in my opinion. This should not be an issue at all. Mexican-American War is the name. Jeffaz02t11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
War always has a cost, so the notion that a war has been 'won' requires a judgement based on some sort of cost-benefit analysis and the benefits are usually not mutual (hence the war). Therefore, 'winning' a war cannot be supported based on fact alone and cannot be neutral. This can't therefore be used as a dictum for establishing neutral content. 199.104.151.13107:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Time to shorten the article
This article is getting quite long, and per WP:Article size, I think we could chop it down or condense it. I have the following suggestions:
Move Transportation section to a new article; leave behind a condensed version (1-2 paragraphs).
Delete the giant list of cities in the Important Cities and Towns section. All of those cities are listed in the see also page, and many of the cities listed are mentioned elsewhere in the article.
Delete the Top 25 Cities by Wealth table. It's interesting, but it isn't all that necessary to a general article on Arizona. Perhaps it could be moved to another page.
Figure out what to do with the Miscellaneous topics section. All of the info in that section could be integrated with the rest of the article. Some subsections (UFOs) could be deleted entirely, while other sections (pop culture) could be vastly condensed, as they are redundant with the see also articles.
I trimmed out the UFO and Illegal Immigration sections. The UFO stuff is "fun trivia" that doesn't really belong, and the info on illegal immigration is both unsourced and inappropriate, placing it on an article about a state is putting far too much undue weight on a single topic. It is better suited to an article about immigration, or perhaps a small mention in the state history section but as it's own section, it really doesn't belong. Arkyan • (talk)15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Arizona threatens secession
Someone should mention this
Got a reference for us? Unless you're talking about the bill that came up 6 years ago, I'm at a loss for any "secession threats". Arkyan • (talk)15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Props to editors for such wonderful images on this wiki
Thanks to whoever uploaded them; they really add something to this article and definetly leave me feeling more informed about the state. 24.251.84.22123:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Etymology
Can someone explain to me why, even if it is incorrect, the theory that "Arizona" comes from "árida zona", meaning "arid zone" or "dry land", is not on this article? The phrase is seen in Spanish, with over 900 Google hits in that language, and over 10,000 altogether. Thanks, Trvsdrlng (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I currently have alot of trouble reading this article. Could you please fix it? Please! remember that some people like myself use Mozilla firefox and utopia for the web browser, not Internet explorer. Dwilso02:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arizona/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Preliminary Review
Hi. Unfortunately, the article is not ready for GA status. It is being quick failed for the following reasons:
1) The article still has citation flags ( {{fact}} tags ).
2) There are also entire sections devoid of citations where they would be necessary as per WP:GACR. Please see WP:PROVEIT for further details. I have added Arizona to the Unreferenced article task force to help find references.
According to the article the state is 59% White American and 24% Hispanic....but if you go to the "White American" wikipedia webpage, the term White American SHOULD INCLUDE White Hispanics. So the percentage of White American is NOT 59% but 88%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.38.130 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
state food
Just a quick question. Does anyone know what the main state food for Arizona is? Like you have the Georgia Peach, or the Idaho Potato. Does Arizona have one of these? Thank You for your answers.
In an article on Arizona, does it make sense to identify one of the senators as a 2008 presidential nominee? A sub section may make sense, but in Massachusetts, one of the senators is not further identified as a presidential nominee, and in the Alaska article there is a subsection.
The designation makes more sense in the senator's article than here.
Are etymologists sure that "Arizona" is an Indian word? The article lists several possible etymologies, and they were all rather obscure words. But I'd always assumed (with no higher authority than my own intuition, mind you) that it was based on the same Latin root as "arid." After all, an arid climate is certainly one of Arizona's important characteristics. Isn't it possible that this is the true etymology?
How about adding a creationist viewpoint on how the Grand Canyon was formed? Or just leave how it was formed out all together and leave that up to the Grand Canyon article?
No, this would be inappropriate. The vast majority of people (not just scientists) agree that the Grand Canyon was not formed in a matter of weeks. This viewpoint belongs neither on Arizona or Grand Canyon but on Creationism. Jeeves 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Arizona has nothing to do with religion. I would recommend finding a religious wiki to share your viewpoint. --Kahnadex06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do NOT do that.
Agree for all of the reasons stated above, as well as the yet unmentioned fact that there is absolutely nothing mentioned about the Grand Canyon in any translation of the Christian or Hebrew versions of creation that I have ever heard about. Were such an effort to be attempted, the only meaningful result would be a one-liner stating that the Grand Canyon just flat out isn't even mentioned in Genesis! Imagine what a different place the USA would be if the typical fundamentalist Christian actually read the actual Christian bible from one end to the other... Zaphraud (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The church was terrified that someone would read the good book and it's a pretty good book. That's why they Kept the bible in Latin for so long. Sorry, I'm a preacher's kid. ;]Romanfall (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC) romanfall
Although the phrase "creation science" is as oxymoronic as it sounds, creationism is still (like science) an attempt to find explanations for everything in the world, not just the things that are mentioned in the Bible. Even for those Christians who hold to a doctrine like sola scriptura, the fact that the Bible doesn't mention the Grand Canyon isn't a reason why there can't be a "creationist viewpoint on how the Grand Canyon was formed." There are plenty of other reasons why such a viewpoint doesn't belong in this article, but "it's not mentioned in the Bible" isn't one of them.
--Ojuice5001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.121.104 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but its still an absolutely crazy idea, considering that the entire continent of North America isn't even mentioned in the hebrew mythology -or- the hebrew-themed preface to the Christian Bible. Where do these nutters come up with these crazy ideas, anyways? Don't they realize that 90+% of creation science is complete and total heresy? Zaphraud (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Federal representation section
This section needs to be updated with the recent November 2006 election results.
Somebody has changed the "Georgraphy" section and filled it with lots of interesting and unusual information. I don't know lots about Arizona, but I do know that it isn't located in Canada, and I also know that "Bambi" is not tea, and I don't think that Arizona even grows tea! Perhaps this information could be fixed? Flivelwitz (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Just some vandalism, since fixed by User:Plazak. If you notice things like this in the future, usually the last edit in the article's history will be vandalism, and can usually be reverted easily. AlexiusHoratius14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
History?
Most of the articles on U.S. states are shamefully lacking any history before European colonization. I know reliable information on pre-Columbian history is sparse, but it isn't nonexistent. Could someone who knows something about this at least put together a paragraph or two? The way the article currently reads, it sounds as if the place and its indigenous peoples may have just sprung up in 1539.Carlaclaws (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Time Zone
The time zone thing on the side lists Arizona as being in Mountain time. This is only true half of the year. Arizona does not change its clocks when the rest of the country sets theirs forward or back, so Arizona is usually described as its own time zone or alternatively as switching between Mountain half of the year and Pacific the other half. I'm not sure how to change something in a side tab like that and I'm not sure where such a mention should go in the article itself, so I'll leave the editing to my betters. ;)
--Banyan (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually the statement is true : Arizona is on Mountain Standard Time all year long. MST is functionally identical to Pacific Daylight Time but it is not the same time zone, it is not as if the timezone boundaries are moving around Arizona throughout the year. I'm trying to think of a good analogy but I cannot. Here is another way to look at it. Pacific Standard Time is UTC-8. Pacific Daylight Time and Mountain Standard Time are both UTC-7. Mountain Daylight Time is UTC-6. Arizona is always on UTC-7. For all intents and purposes, Arizona could therefore be described as being on the same time as either MST or PDT at any time during the year. Rather than create the idea of a state floating back and forth among time zones, which is a silly concept, it is accurately described as being on MST all year long. Shereth15:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Population - Bad Source
I removed the following:
"At the time of Arizona’s acquisition by the United States in 1848, fewer than 1,000 people of Hispanic origin lived in Arizona."
The very same page claims Arizona is still only "sparsely populated". This page is about the whole state; not some of the more vacant counties within it. Sure, Arizona has some really sparse spots, but most larger states do. Additionally, I don't know who's running britannica.com these days, but considering Arizona has one of the top-five most populated cities in the entire United States, the only possible explanations for such an absurd claim are either malice, total ignorance, or simply recycling horribly outdated information over and over and over again. Arizona's been well populated for quite some time, but it hasn't always been so.
It is well known that older population counts (like, from way back when Arizona was "sparsely populated" - you know, before the construction of a very nice nuclear reactor made air conditioning affordable here!) often simply chose to ignore people who, while being quite alive, didn't have the "right paperwork" to get counted.
Considering In 1853 the land below the Gila River was acquired from Mexico and that in 1850, the population of Tucson alone was estimated at a nice, even 400 - every last one of them a mexican, because it wasn't part of the United States yet - and considering that the Pima, by then spanish speaking, living even further south of Tucson, but still within Arizona, had been there all along, it's silly to think that the total number of people with "hispanic origins"
Remember, "Hispanic" isn't a "race". This isn't some politically correct talking point either - Nobody has ever said it was a race in the first place! "Hispanic" includes natives of Europe (Spain), Asia (Philippines), and North America (Mexico). The only real all-spanning definition of having "Hispanic origins" seems to be that a persons parents speak Spanish and identify with a Spanish speaking cultural area, whatever area that may be. A more formal definition, still including all the areas I've mention, states something to the effect of "Areas once ruled by Spain". So, yeah. There were almost certainly more than 1000 "Hispanics" in the area that would be a part of Arizona, once the entire thing was actually aquired.
The removed section also is incorrect because not all of Arizona was acquired in 1848.
Agreed. Even if the numbers are inaccurate, they have a valid source and should be left in the article. Please find a citable source, one that can be proven to be more reliable than the former, that mentions a more correct tally. Until then the number should remain. 72.219.56.68 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agreed that properly sourced information should not be removed, it is clear that folks with a right wing anti-hispanic agenda have taken over the Arizona page. White Arizonans have reasons to feel uneased about immigration and crime. But it does not justify altering history and demographic realities of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.166.164 (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please Edit the following under "Important cities and towns" -- It is home to the University of Arizona, which Nicole Richie attended and, along with Arizona State University in Tempe, is considered the state's flagship university. Nicole Richie is completely irrelevant to this section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottland174 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Economy
As far as the "Economy" section the five "C"s mentioned in including "climate" had nothing to do with tourism at all, but Arizona was a haven for those with respiratory diseases, Phoenix especially, and TB due to its dry climate. So this needs fixing. The tourism there is something that has been purposeful, and now it is now longer a haven for those with respiratory diseases for the most part, due to all the uncontrolled and unrestrained growth and urban sprawl in Phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgg530 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Immigration Law
How come there is no mention of the controversial new immigration law on this article? It's all over the news, and people have been literally "boycotting Arizona" over it. I know the topic has been covered in Jan Brewer and Arizona SB1070, but with the criticism of Arizona going on, doesn't anyone think it deserves mention in this article, too, like under the law and government section? Or is Wikipedia too right-wing racist to mention it? Equility (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Although this is pretty big at the moment, I doubt this will still be huge news a year (or even half a year) from now unless there are future developments with the law or the implementation of it. It might be nice to put in something about "In the news currently: Arizona SB1070" but I don't think it really deserves much mentioning. Thegargantua (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I also did not see a mention of the MLK Boycott, which I feel is an important part of the State's past. I would support mentioning both boycotts, possibly in the history section. The boycotts were certainly more interesting than other topics mentioned in the history section, such as the online democratic primary. Fsu23phd (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As a former longer term Arizonan, while SB1070 may seem "new" it is not, and was done in practice throughout the entire time I was growing up there, and there were even border stations between Arizona and California. People have to show driver's licenses upon a stop, and if they were "foreign" licenses, also had to show their visa papers. Problem is, there are no longer visas anymore and there were then.
I think you should wait until the law is either passed or vetoed. I think it's risky, because people might get mad. I mean, I've seen really bad edit wars. I think it's risky. Paleo Kid (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Clean Election State
I was trying to confirm that AZ has a "Clean Election" law, but there is no mention of it under the Government section. AZ is one of the few states to adopt this process. I think a brief mention of this would be helpful with a link over to the Clean Elections page. I believe Janet Napalitano was the first US Governor elected under the state's clean election law.
Quoting from the Clean Elections page:
"Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine since 2000. A majority of candidates accept the grants rather than raise private contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators ran with government subsidies provided by a Clean Elections Program.[9] In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house[citation needed]. In 2006 both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor of Arizona ran Clean Elections campaigns. There has not yet been a statewide election in Maine in which both the Republican and Democratic candidates were financed through the Clean Election System."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_elections
Common misconception. Much of Arizona, including the most heavily populated parts, is desert, but essentially the entire northern half of the state is not. We have huge pine forests, a plateau region, and more. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
List of consuls?
oes anyone beside Eesticonsul believe that it is useful for the article to have a list of foreign consuls? Consulates, perhaps, but to name every consul seems useless and excessive to me. Plazak (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't found a reliable source to justify the claim that the legislature delayed the ratification of the Arizona Enabling Act so that it would coincide with the approval of the confederate states of america 50 years prior. In fact, the only evidence I have found is that President Taft delayed the approval of the Enabling Act because he did not like the provision about recalling judges. Therefore, I am deleting this statement unless someone can find a source. Mherlihy (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
File:UPX.HQ.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:UPX.HQ.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
For some unknown reason someone has replaced Surprise with Flagstaff under the largest cities section. Could someone sort this out please? I have no idea how to embed files/images so I can't do it myself.VanillaBear23 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no map of Arizona on the page, besides the very basic one showing the general location in the USA? Seems like something worth having for a page like this, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.167.50 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
In the "Economy" section, in the first paragraph, this sentence does not make sense: "Arizona’s projected $1.5 billion deficit for fiscal year 2012, one of the largest in the country, behind such states as Texas, California, Michigan, and Florida, to name a few".
24.249.175.130 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
LGBT section under Demographics?
What purpose does it serve to have this paragraph in the Demographics section? Nothing in the paragraph has anything to do with actual demographics; it's about a recent constitutional amendment. In addition, the paragraph is repeated word-for-word later under the "Government" section. Unless someone provides a meaningful reason for its inclusion under Demographics, I am going to remove it in a few days. The paragraph will still be in the article, just under "Government" where it belongs.
Sevey13 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
There Is No census In Arizona
Remove claims of census data for Arizona in 1990, 2000, and 2010. It's false. It doesn't exist. Look it up, if you don't believe me. The Census Bureau has estimates for Arizona, not actual census data. In my 26 years (all in one of the largest cities in Arizona), I have never been included in proper census data. Arizona does not do the census polls/surveys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.45.150 (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The correct answer is both. According to ARS 41-856, "The Palo Verde (genera cercidium) shall be the state tree." Cercidium is synonymous with parkinsonia, so technically any palo verde tree qualifies. 137.152.127.16 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Arizona's name
All the research seems to avoid the very common practice of the Spanish Conquistadors in abreviating words as a place name - examples: Veracruz - la verdadera Cruz, Verapaz - la verdadera Paz, Pamama = Pan America. IT si ARizona because it is a Zona Arida that is all - in your article no mention is made of another common interpertation that it is a Pima Indian word - SW Indians use a version of Spanish as there lingua franca, so my contention would still be right. Arizona fits perfectly with other Spanish place names: La Nevada, La Montan(ñ)a, El Colorado and La Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.187.175 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Nicknames?
Why can ASU list sundevils, NAU list lumberjacks, and UoA list Wildcats as their schools athelic programme next to the school in the list of universities but GCU can't list (antelopes) because this somehow is different?? This is the second largest university in Arizona, and a NCAA Division I athletic participant. I fail to see why this revision is being undone. --Vchapman (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Vchapman: Simply because it is not in keeping with the rest of the entries of that list, so yes, it is different. But leave this question up, and if a bunch of other folks agree with you, of course, we'll go with the consensus. But until then, the rule of thumb is not to make a change like that. It's also not the second largest school (it would be 4th behind UA and ASU and U of Phx), in terms of overall students, and that's only because of it's large on-line enrollment. Practically speaking, it would still rank 4th, since it is only a quarter of the size of NAU. I definitely see your point, however. The only way I think it could work is if we reorganized the schools and listed the 4 NCAA division 1 schools together. Although the current breakdown seems to work better overall. Let's leave this discussion open and see what other editors have to say. (oh, one other thing, in the future, if you want an editor to know that you've left a message on a talk page, all you have to do is leave a "ping", like I did to you at the beginning of this response. That way you don't also have to leave a message on their talk page. Makes it a bit easier)Onel5969 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Okay, I'll give your 4th. I had originally excluded PHX Col is it has campuses in 39 states. Based on total students, GCU does rank 2nd behind ASU. Excluding online students, there are about 23,000 traditional ground students at NAU and 8,500 at GCU. Not quite 1/4, but GCU is significantly smaller, placing it 4th in the State for 4 year undergrad and post degree granting universities. Thanks for the response and input/guidance. I have not been involved in wikipedia, except some small stuff, since I started back at college 5 years ago. Now that I have graduated, and can use wikipedia w/o being shunned by academic professors, I have slowly picked up the pace. It's amazing how much Wikipedia has changed in 5 years. --Vchapman (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Music section
Could be improved. Such as placement of image used to show the importance of music in Arizona. The paragraphs and examples used are not orderly or methodical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.100.180 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Anybody who does not wish to add to an article and just goes about reverting every edit he sees on Wikipedia, is a straight up asshole with nothing to contribute. Go fuck yourself.
Well, it's obvious you don't know much about Wikipedia, or about me. You should really try reading WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Your edits were reverted with specific rationale for doing so: they were WP:NPOV (the mention of megadeath fans), WP:UNDUE (the extent of intersest in megadeath on a State article), WP:TRIVIA (the expansion of the entire section dealing with song mentions, although one or two more wouldn't be a big issue - but that's why there's an entire article on the subject, this should be very abbreviated. Onel5969 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to one external link on Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 12 external links on Arizona. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
My edit on education was reverted alleging contrary to NPOV . I had added that teachers are no longer required to have a teaching qualification. This is a statement of fact not an opinion - see reference. It is also notable, as Arizona is unusual in allowing this. I see no justification for reverting this and will reinstate my edit unless some more serious justification is posted here.Wickifrank (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The statement you added sounded like it meant to impugn the change because it did not explain both positions. The source you cited included more information after the word "however" which you neglected to include, thus failing to take a neutral stance. The law says that in response to a teacher shortage in Arizona, school districts are free to hire people with “expertise in a content area or subject matter.” The law allows "much of the decision on who is qualified up to local school superintendents rather than the state Department of Education." Teachers still need to be qualified, just in a different way and only as administered by the State education dept. MB03:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that you have just proved my point . Those employed in Arizona public schools are no longer required by the State to be qualified to "teach" - itself a skill beyond having knowledge of a subject area. The article is about Arizona law - not local school superintendents who you imply will be wise and ignore the policy - and I made no comment on whether the policy was wise as that would not be be NPOV. Wickifrank (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That someone needs more than expertise in a subject area to be qualified to "teach" is an opinion. This is a controversial change in Arizona and WP needs to summarize coverage in RS, not cherry pick pieces to support your opinion. This AZ central article [1] says the bill creates "alternative-teaching credentials", allows school districts to decide eligibility, requires at least a BA, 5 yrs related experience, a background check. The statement you added was clearly pushing a POV. In fact, allowing school districts to determine eligibility criteria (beyond the BA, 5 yrs, still required by the state) is still a formal process - just not the existing one set by the state ED dept. MB14:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
While coverage of the law might warrant inclusion (doesn't need to), MB is absolutely on-target about keeping the tone of the coverage neutral. The edit which was reverted was obviously non-neutral. If a brief mention of both sides of the argument can be made (and cited with RS), then it can be included. However, this is really pretty insignificant on the article of the State of Arizona. Onel5969TT me15:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Arizona. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In the "History" subsection "20th century to present," the very last sentence mentions that the battleship BB-39 was named "Arizona" after "statehood was achieved."
I have proof that that is not true. I have copies of BB-39's blueprints and plans all dated BEFORE McKinley signed the statehood proclamation with the "Arizona" name already on them.
I have just modified 2 external links on Arizona. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Largest Employers in Arizona: It is hard to believe that Arizona State Univ. is not on of the largest employers in Southern Arizona, and yeah, the whole state.
Arizona State Univ. is a large university, and it has multiple campuses in Maricopa County. Furthermore, the Univ. of Arizona is listed separately, but that university belongs to the State, and hence its employees are all employees of the state, as are the employees of Arizona State Univ., Northern Arizona Univ., and the state community colleges. It would be unreasonable to list the Univ. of Arizona separately, and not to do so for Arizona State Univ. and Northern Arizona Univ. Furthermore, a large employer in Arizona is the Federal Government of the United States, especially since Arizona contains so my Federally-owned property in National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, lands of the Bureau of Land Management, Air Force Bases, proving grounds, and a large Army fort. (Ft. Huachuca)47.215.180.7 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Converting temperature swings between °F and °C
Hello, I made a correction in the Climate section, where there is a mention of a temperature swing of 83°F. The usual convert template can't be used to display the equivalent swing in °C. This is because a temperature swing of 83°F is a difference between two temperatures in °F. Ex: 83°F(28.3°C) - 0°F(-17.8°C) = 83°F(46.1°C). While using the convert template only converts 83°F to its equivalent 28.3°C.
Gireeshgprasad (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Your chitchat about temperature swings gave the right answer, but it contains a lot of nonsense about templates, tables, and whatnot. Here is all you have to do to convert a change of 83 degrees Fahrenheit to degrees Celsius: (83.0 F.)x(5/9) = 46.1 degrees Celsius. It is this simple.47.215.180.7 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2018
This edit request to Arizona has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎)21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Lower case for common nouns
@Onel5969: Please read and understand MOS:JOBTITLES. The terms governor and presidential candidate are not proper names, and so are only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or (in the case of "governor") when "followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name", as in "he told Governor Doug Ducey that ...". Adjectives are only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or when obtained from a proper noun, like "European"; "presidential" comes from "president", which is a common noun. I did not change "Secretary of the Interior", since it is treated as a proper name. Please restore the changes that I made, or agree to leave them alone when they are changed to lower case, as the MoS calls for. Christhe spelleryack16:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
When you place a see also in a section, the target should be primarily about the subject, e.g. the see also List of Films in Arizona in the films section. That makes sense, it is not the main article about the subject, but it is peculiar to the specific subject of that section. Adding see alsos about generic subjects into particular sections, gives the reader the false impression that those targets deal specifically with Arizona's entrance into the Union. That said, I'm not even sure that such non-specific links belong anywhere in the article, even in the see also section, but I wouldn't put up much of an argument against it. If and when this article is worked on to get it into GA or FA status, those links would almost certainly be removed.Onel5969TT me16:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Governor election
I believe it states in the Constitution of the State of Arizona that a tie in the election of the Governor of Arizona shall be resolved by a poker game between the two candidates. That seems like a rather notable fact that should be included somewhere within this article.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.
Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text to the education section of the page:
Arizona ranked 46th in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 68.6 out of 100 points and a grade of D-plus. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.
Arizona posted a C in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 43rd on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. Arizona received a mark of D-minus and finished 46th for School Finance. It ranked 25th with a grade of C-minus on the K-12 Achievement Index.
In the info box in the upper right of the article (I don't know what it's called) the population number is indicated to be based on 2019 stats/census/estimate whatever. But "2019" is written as "2,019". This mistake goes back years. There are older versions of the site that say "2,018," or "2,017" or "2,016". Don't know when this started but this is not how you write years.
Population
• Total 7,278,717 (2,019) =====> should say "7,278,717 (2019)" instead
• Rank 14th
• Density 57/sq mi (22/km2)
• Density rank 33rd
• Median household income
I removed the following text from the lead section: Although federal law gave all Native Americans U.S. citizenship (and thereby the right to vote) in 1924, Arizona excluded those living on reservations in the state from voting until the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of Native American plaintiffs in Harrison v. Laveen (1948).
I feel this is an excessive amount of detail in the lead section. This material is discussed twice in the article, in History and in Politics; it's a historical detail that isn't that important. However, I don't see List of Indian reservations in Arizona anywhere on this page; could a one-paragraph summary of that page be added somewhere? 97.125.232.133 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you've answered your on question, that fact it is under History and Politics is because it is relevant to Arizona history and should then be summed up in the lede. It is pretty relevant, seeing as natives were given the right to vote in 1924 under the Indian Citizenship Act from congress, but it took another 24 years to overturn that in the supreme court. That had massive impact on Natives in a state listed as 3rd for number of natives in the country. NZFC(talk)(cont)00:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll agree with the OP here and say I at least think the lead could be stronger. The case does seem like excessive detail, but at least I think it needs a follow up sentence of some kind to summarize natives in the state today. Certainly natives should be mentioned, but it should be more general and succinct, such as "Although natives were given the right to vote federally in 1924, the suit denied that right to those on reservations until a 1948 case (with a link to the case). Today, natives are a major political force in the state." Something along those lines. A body paragraph on Arizona native reservations would also be great.
On a related note, the lead in general could certainly use another paragraph, I think, devoted to the state's present society, economy, and culture. There's a lot on history and geography but nothing on its present characteristics. I am not from there and cannot speak for it and do not know the best description, but the lead should mention the rise of the Sun Belt and the growth of the cities, and then one or two leading industries. Additionally, if natives are in the lead, I think Hispanics/Latinos should be mentioned as well. Scarlettail (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Percentages in demographics – MOS:UNCERTAINTY
While the "exact" number of people with particular racial or linguistic back grounds can be counted on a particular census day, the exact percentages of those people on a census day is not encyclopedic. E.g., we should not provide undue precision in the percentages. As we have more than 7,000,000 people in the state, this overview article serves well to tell the readers that "xx% of the people are such-and-such ethnic/linguistic background". The readers are not interested in whether such-and-such ethnic/linguistic background is xx.xxx%, or xx.xx%, or xx.x% of the population. (If they are interested we other articles for them to read.) That is why I rounded the percentage figures to whole numbers. – S. Rich (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Time Zone
Arizona's time zone is incorrectly stated. Under "Most of state" it is correctly listed as UTC-07:00. However, since Arizona stays on UTC-07:00 year round, its named/linked time zone should be "Mountain Standard" or "MST", not "Mountain". Mountain Time (MT) changes from Mountain Standard (UTC-07:00) to Mountain Daylight (UTC-06:00) depending on whether Daylight Saving Time is in effect; since most of Arizona (except the Navajo Nation, which already has a separate time zone specified) does not observe Daylight Saving, it is always on Mountain Standard Time, i.e. UTC-07:00.
Similarly, the time zone entry for "Summer (DST)" is incorrect, or at least is applicable only to the Navajo Nation. In summer, most of Arizona - except the Navajo Nation - is still on Mountain Standard (UTC-07:00) time, because Daylight Saving is not observed. So the section should be edited to show "Summer" in two parts: "Most of state - UTC-07:00 (MST)" and "Navajo Nation - UTC-06:00 (MDT)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleDoctor78 (talk • contribs)
That only proves my point. The fact that the Mountain Time Zone article correctly states the time zone situation in Arizona only highlights:
1. The inaccuracy of the statements in the Arizona article; and
2. That the time zone situation in Arizona is relatively simple to articulate correctly.
As it is, the (inaccurate) Arizona article directly conflicts with the (accurate) Mountain Time Zone article in this regard. Requiring readers to follow links to correct clearly bad information is hardly best practice. LittleDoctor78 (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Short description
Per Elli, the proper disambiguation is "U.S. state", "State in the United States" is longer while not being any more useful to readers. I've standardized this across all fifty states.
Proper according to whom? First of all, a Short Description is NOT a disambiguator, although that is one of its functions, it is a description of the article. As a description, United States is more formal and should always be used, at least at first mention, when space is not a constraint. "State in the United States" is only 26 characters, it is well within the "about 40" character limit for a short description. There is no reason to abbreviate here. MB02:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@MB: short descriptions are primarily used in mobile search where space is somewhat of a constraint. "U.S. state" clearly identifies what Arizona is, whereas "State in the United States" is not quite as clear (take the first two words -- "State in" could refer to many things).
Look at the disambiguation hatnote at the top of the page. We use This article is about the U.S. state., not This article is about the State in the United States. because the former is more clear to readers while being shorter. I do not see any benefit to the longer, less clear, description. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think "U.S. state" is appropriate, given that the article on U.S. states has the exact same name. MB is right that a short description's purpose is not just disambuguation, but "State in the United States" or "State of the United States" is awkward, as evidenced by the title of the article on U.S. states. Thrakkx (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to propose here that "U.S. state in the X region" (where X = Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, etc) is even better for short desc than "U.S. state" alone. The rationale is that it is still quite short (usually less than 40 characters) but also provides a useful short clue to the many users of en.WP worldwide who are not from the U.S. Logically the pros outweigh any cons. If people accept this logic, then I would volunteer to update the lower-48 articles myself so no one else has to bother. I would argue that Alaska could be "U.S. state near the Bering Sea" and Hawaii could be "U.S. state in the Pacific Ocean". If anyone rejects this proposal then I would like to know the arguments against it. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand the above argument for U.S. State vs. State in... and agree with rationale for the former. That said, in doing SD's, I've always felt that the more descriptive you can be, and still keep it at 40 or less characters, the better. For example, you could simply say "American Screenwriter" (which I've done numerous times, as in Arthur T. Horman, but if someone added (1905-1964), that would be entirely appropriate. So, I would have no issue with accepting Quercus solaris' version. Onel5969TT me19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I concur with making this more descriptive, but "U.S. state in the Southwest" is vague. Southwest what? I would prefer "State in the southwestern United States", but per the above, others may agree with that. MB18:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Per pattern of "U.S. state in the X region" (where X = Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, etc) then it will yield for example "U.S. state in the Southwest region", which will be clear. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Quercus solaris: I completely disagree with this. Every U.S. state has a unique name so the "in the X region" serves no disambiguating purpose. Short descriptions are not meant to contain article content. Additionally, the regions that states are in are rather arbitrary and contentious. I don't think adding this would be an improvement for anyone. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Meh. Short descriptions are not solely for disambiguation; they're allowed to carry a kernel of useful information along with the disambiguation as long as they remain short, and generally are more useful when they do. I suppose the biggest objection is the choice of which schema of U.S. regions would be used, but the ones that I had in mind when I proposed it were the Census Bureau Regions, which have some officialdom about them and are well established and defined, not merely any rando's opinion, and not very contentious to most Americans. However, I probably don't feel as adamant about the topic as you do, and I don't do as much Wikipedian work around U.S. political geography as you do, so I'll defer to your preference on this topic. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Cites and Town section
Alright, most of the section was copied from a website. The section has barely any sources to prove it wasn't copied and since most of the arizona article was created from a singular website (most if it has been removed), the section needs to be rewritten. The website is https://www.atlasofhumanity.com/arizona and if anyone can rewrite it since I will be busy, that will be appreciated. Thanks! `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸)04:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Demographics section layout
I think the article would read better if the three maps (population density, language, ethnicity) were displayed side-by-side, rather than scattered haphazardly (note WP:SANDWICH). Walt Yoder (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Just a side note: you should probably discuss the substantial deletion of content here before going through and removing it entirely. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking at the guide for this and I have never met an American who pronounces it as "ARR" as opposed to "AIR." I think this might be the British pronunciation? could we include both pronunciations in the guide? it just seems so strange.... 2600:8802:1718:5700:3C6D:308F:F7CC:1C1F (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
No edit specified. If you want to have the page protected, please see WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Edit request declined
