Talk:San Pedro Sula

History

These seems to be unreliable history facts for this article. San Pedro Sula (SPS) was never attacked by pirates. That is because the river that goes near SPS is not suitable for boat or ship travel. Besides the river has had always a blocked entrance through sea.Valdez007 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was attacked by pirates and burned. San Pedro didn't start out where it is today. its moved 3 times, with the current location being the third location. It was founded somewhere just south of Choloma on the then current Choloma river course (not the modern one, but an abandoned course), then moved out to be along the course of the Chamelecon River, was sacked in the 17th century; and as a result, was moved to where it is today. In the 16th and 17th C. the Ulua and Chamelecon rivers were navigable by ocean going boats and their mouth was not blocked. Indeed, until sometime in the 1570s or 80s the Chamelecon River was a tributary of the Ulua river, joining it somewhere around Tibombo. They split late in the 16th Century. Colonial documents address this by discussing building a barrier accross the mouth of the Ulua to stop ships from navigating up in in 1590, impounding contraband on ships that came from Cuba in the town today known as San Manuel in the 17th century, and so on. Apparently deforestation has cut back on the available water in both the Ulua and Chamelecon rivers. Rsheptak 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound disrespectful, but where did you get the information? If it is true a reliable source must be cited and this short paragraph must be added to the article if it is true. I live in San Pedro Sula and that is why I ask. Valdez007 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem...most of this is unpublished research supported by documents in the Archivo General de Indias and the Archivo General de CentroAmerica. I got some of the original information from the geographer William Davidson (now retired, from LSU). The info about the two rivers being joined is from a 1980s PhD dissertation by Kevin Pope (Stanford). There are lots of documents that talk about ship traffic, even ocean going Spanish ships (though I suspect only small ones) on the Ulua and Chamalecon rivers in the 16th and 17th centuries. If you haven't guessed, I do research on colonial Honduras, especially the 16th and 17th centuries. I know San Pedro well from being involved in the last 27 years of archaeological research in the valley around it. Rsheptak 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting, but Wikipedia has a very strict policy against original research. If it isn't in a published reliable source then we can't include it here.Notmyrealname 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This stuff has been published in local newspapers, eg La Prensa which has extensively covered the history of this town and the rest of the country and therefore citing isnt a problem, SqueakBox 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. There are plenty of published sources, even in English. Its just that as a historian I prefer to cite original documents rather than some published perversion of them, even my own. Wikipedia is not a scholarly endeavor. Rsheptak 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What This Page Should Contain

As I look at this page today, I'm reminded of the yellow pages in a phone book, listings of malls, schools, etc. Is this really something you want on this page to tell the world about San Pedro Sula? If you're one of the people who added this information, I'd love to understand why you think its important to have it on the page. Thanks. Rsheptak 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

True it does look like a Yellow page book. Yet, since there is little history information, some tourist information is also welcomed. I added the Places of Interests, but I did not include the list of schools.Valdez007 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Other

I removed two pieces of information from the entry. It is not true that San Pedro became called San Pedro Sula within 5 years of its founding. There are a couple of issues with this designation, and its timing. Today there are two (not one) Sula valleys in Honduras; the one that contains San Pedro Sula, and the one that contains Sula, next to the Quimistan valley to the west of Naco. The valley around San Pedro was not called the Sula valley in the colonial period; it had no name. Calling it the sula valley is a fairly recent historical event.

San Pedro de Puerto De Caballos became San Pedro de las Minas de Sula which eventually became San Pedro Sula, but a geographer who researched the many many transformations of the city's name in colonial documents, tells me this didn't happen until the 18th century. My research is primarily on the 16th and 17th centuries and I have not found a document that refers to it as San Pedro Sula.

I reinstated the bit about the railroad which I had initially removed. My understanding is that the railroad was never important in the history of San Pedro outside of the context of the banana companies. It received scant attention in Perfecto Bobadilla's Monografia geografica e historica San Pedro Sula, IV Centenario de su Fundacion 1536-1936. I'll reread the section on the railroad in Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's book Biografia de San Pedro Sula: 1536-1954 and use his understanding as guidance for future edits about the railroad.

Anyone know where the population figures in the box came from? They seem low. In 1999, the city's population was already 515,206 with an annual growth rate (1994-1999) of 4.4% so I find it strange that the 2006 population would be 517,000. Source for 1999 data: http://www.infohn.com/sisde/home.htm. Rsheptak 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better to put the older dates till we get more reliable new ones, SqueakBox 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EscudoSPS.gif

Image:EscudoSPS.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Popularity of Footbal Teams

The articles for Espa#a and Marathon, had a qualifier stating that Marathon was the main team of the city. "Main" seems like a WP:WEASEL word for obvious reasons. I'd think that the author meant "most popular", which I was about to enter, but then I wouldn't have anything to back it up. When I lived there it was always thought that Marathon was more popular than Espa#a. Does anyone have a link to a source that could be added to put the statement back? Wikihonduras 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

pictures

there are two photos of The municipal palace and tow photos of the cathedral. I think one of each would suffice. (Sunsetterxxx (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, good point. I removed the two old snapshot photos (which I put in the article back when we had nothing else); those are already on Commons anyway. I added a link to the image gallery on Commons. (If you have other photos you have taken and are willing to free license, please upload them to the Commons.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Former Mayor Jeronimo S. Sorto

• Could someone create the profile for the former Mayor Jeronimo S. Sorto? Thanks! Jccort (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of San Pedro Sula Cathedral?

I haven't been in San Pedro in a while, but is the picture showing as of July 8th 2008 a correct picture of the Metropolitan Cathedral? Specially since there is a different (much larger building) further down in the same article. Can anyone confirm this? Wikihonduras (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Cathedral shown in Image:San Pedro Sula Cathedral.jpg, from 2005, is the same building I knew as the Cathedral in San Pedro Sula 25 years ago. Image:Catedral.JPG currently at the top of the article clearly shows a different building. Was the Cathedral moved to a different building? Or is this some other "cathedral" -- Episcopalian or something? Or is the image simply misidentified? Without clarification, I think it should not be so prominently displayed, so I'm moving it down the article for now pending more info. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they show the same building from different locations in the plaza. What confuses you is that the Gazebo in the plaza is obscuring the main part of the cathedral in the nighttime picture. I'd ditch that one for that reason...its a bad picture of the cathedral since most of it is obscured behind a building in the foreground with only the bell towers visible. Rsheptak (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They are the same NOW. The new image was not the image that I was referring to when I first posted. This new image is a night shot of the Cathedral I knew, while the one before was a day shot of a more modern, No-Gazebo and much smaller church. Well any how, the important thing is that the new picture is correct, which is all that matters. Wikihonduras (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually the problem was that someone on Commons overwrote the too general title "Image:Catedral" with another image, showing "la catedral de la ciudad de San Bernardo" in Chile! It's since been reverted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the History of that image, and some clown replaced it with a Cathedral in Chile on July 5,and it was only recently reverted back.Rsheptak (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Beat me again Rsheptak, I was about to post the same. The lack of tree folliage kind of hinted this was taken at a place a bit "colder" than San Pedro. This is the old picture in case anyone was curious. [1]

Elevation of San Pedro Sula

I see the elevation listed at 440 meters, over 1,400 feet. Having lived in San Pedro I found that very unlikely. I would've thought that if any thing San Pedro would be just a few meters (less than 50) above sea level. Unfortunately don't have any links to back it up. Anyone? On the meantime I would like at least to remove the data since it would be better to have nothing than something which would be far from correct. Wikihonduras (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So everything I could find suggested an elevation of 83 meters (average). By comparison, the airport is 30 meters. Here's a source:

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/HO/6/San_Pedro_Sula.html

Rsheptak (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

USPS Is the first Private Unviersity in Honduras?

The article mentions that San Pedro Sula is home to the first private university of Honduras. Yet the Universidad Privada Jose Cecilio Del Valle site claims that honor. Can anyone confirm either? Wikihonduras (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Crime

Why isn't San Pedro de Sula's high crime rate mentioned in the intro. The city is known as the 'Murder Capital of the World'. Maybe this article is just politically correct without having really useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

b/c theyll kill u if u say so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.41.24 (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Murder capital of the world

In 2011, the most recent year for statistics, San Pedro de Sula had 1,143 homicides for 719,447 inhabitants giving a calculated murder rate of 158.87 per 100,000, putting the city number one in the world for its murder rate [1,2].

This little demographic detail needs to be included. Strange how the murder rates for Honduras in general are not to be found anywhere on Wikipedia. One suspects the hand of the Honduras Tourism Board and its lackeys at work here.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1

[2] http://www.seguridadjusticiaypaz.org.mx/sala-de-prensa/541-san-pedro-sula-la-ciudad-mas-violenta-del-mundo-juarez-la-segunda

58.165.123.47 (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger of List of neighborhoods in San Pedro Sula to here? Or continue to develop there

I'm trying to follow procedure by opening discussion section here, per template posted currently at List of neighborhoods in San Pedro Sula. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neighborhoods in San Pedro Sula was just closed, incorrectly in my opinion, with judgement that it should be merged to San Pedro Sula article. But it does not fit here. There was one editor arguing for merger in the AFD, and I was not agreeing and was developing the neighborhoods list article, and it should have been judged as no consensus or as Keep, IMHO. The other editor discussing, after acknowledging being incorrect in some of their previous assumptions, asserted that "similar expansions (e.g., with subsections based on location within the city) should be undertaken on the main article, regardless of the result of this discussion". But why do that? That assertion was with no supporting argument or information, and perhaps with incorrect assumptions on what is going to be created. If the closer thought that statement represented a consensus, well, I disagree.

How to go forward then? To participants (@MelanieN, Clarityfiend, and Colonel Wilhelm Klink:, let me suggest you might try adding material to the San Pedro Sula article, while not removing material from the List of neighborhoods in San Pedro Sula, and let us discuss how that goes, here. Frankly I think the lists of neighborhoods in each quadrant do not belong in the San Pedro Sula article, because although I have been making some effort developing them, the material is not ready and is too "listy" for the city article. Just copy-pasting all the material is too much for the San Pedro Sula article, IMHO. I forecast that looking at the San Pedro Sula article in the role of editing it, that I and others woould agree it should be removed (and, e.g., put back into the neighborhoods list article). So try and develop San Pedro Sula article in a way that you think is good, and then let's discuss, okay? But note, the closing suggestion is to merge, not to eliminate. I may choose to develop some at the Neighborhoods list-article or may not...however i am a bit discouraged and I don't want to invest much time though, if others are going to plan to remove everything. No big deal, I don't mean to complain too much. I just want to move this along in the right direction.

Also, I recognize a Deletion Review might be an alternative forum to discuss this, but I would rather just work on improving the coverage of the material, wherever it ends up, rather than disputing what happened in the AFD. I appreciate good intentions on the part of all involved. --doncram 04:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

doncram: For some reason, I didn't get your ping; it's a good thing I checked this page. As such, repinging MelanieN and Clarityfiend. I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly; I was the only one who suggested merging, which puts the discussion at one !vote for keep, one !vote for delete (the nom) and one !vote for merge, which really doesn't seem like consensus. The discussion should have been closed as "no consensus"; I suggest you keep the article as per default when a discussion closes as NC. When I find the time, I'll add the prose you inserted at the list to the main, while keeping the actual neighborhood list separate. As for a deletion review, I say we just ignore the discussion, as it was a faulty closure, and it was deadlocked. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the List article encyclopedic? The main references don't point to other sources listing the neighbourhoods, and surely Google maps can't be used as reliable reference for this? Eldumpo (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, Colonel. If people feel the discussion was closed incorrectly or too soon (which is a legitimate argument since there were only three participants), I will be glad to re-open and relist it in hopes of getting more participation. It looked to me as if doncram was also leaning toward merge; maybe I misinterpreted the Colonel's comment that he was "changing his position to merge per doncram's argument". Stepping out of my role as administrator and into a comment as editor, I don't see anything wrong with putting at least the prose portions of the list into this article; most big city articles have a significant section about their neighborhoods. But that was not part of my decision to close the discussion (per my usual practice I did not look at the article, just the discussion) - and if you folks agree, I will reopen and relist it. BTW any time you feel a discussion has been closed inappropriately, the first resort is usually the closer's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what the others say; personally, I wouldn't object to either reopening the discussion or just moving on. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Eldumpo's comments. Google maps is not a good reference for a separate list. Even listing them in this article unsourced is a bit of a stretch. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Needs Serious Work on Accentuation

Whoever wrote the section on administrative divisions is clearly unfamiliar with the rules of Spanish orthography and pronunciation. Accents are not optional in Spanish; they're part of the spelling of the word, as essential as dotting the letter i. I'm going through and making the necessary corrections, but it would be useful to have someone else who's either a native Spanish speaker or is fluent in the language look it over.

The author of that section also uses British spelling conventions, putting it out of step with the introductory section of the article, which uses American spelling standards, so I'm changing that as well for the sake of consistency.

Mpaniello (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The other name "Usula" in the infobox

On October 19, 2019 an IP did this edit without any reason given. Ok for skyline picture but, the other name shown in the infobox (Usula -valley of birds-) simply vanished. I would like to point out that "Usula" was added on February 9, 2007, by Valdez007, and stayed there for 12 years and half. Mainly, the author of that edit, Valdez007, looked like not a casual user with a pair of edts. He did (all in 2007) hundreds of edits, all about Honduras, and expanded a lot (see contribs) the page San Pedro Sula and a specific page of a school in this city (Escuela Internacional Sampedrana). So, for this reasons, because the IP gave not an explanation for this removal, and because Valdez007 (a user without a warning or a block during his career here) seems to be a person who knows San Pedro Sula very well, so much so that he expands a page as detailed as that school mentioned above (I suppose he is Honduran and a citizen of SPS), I would like to request that the other name be added again. Or at least investigated with the help of Honduran Wikipedians. Thanks. --87.3.159.159 (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The relevant question isn't the significance or validity of "Usula" but the purpose of the native_name parameter. It's for the name by which the locals call the place, or the way they write it, in their language. It's for cases like Lisbon—Lisboa—and Tokyo—東京都.

In Spanish, the language of the city, it's called "San Pedro Sula". That's the title of es:San Pedro Sula, the corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia. That article raises "Usula", an indigenous name for the valley in which the city's located, as the source of "Sula", but it gives no indication that the city is called that by residents. Highlighting that name in the infobox would be like highlighting Shikaakwa in the infobox for Chicago. (See User:Largoplazo/Fake Chicago infobox.) The field simply isn't meant to give such prominence to the origin of the place's name.

This isn't putting Valdez007's knowledge about Honduras in question, only that user's understanding of the use of the native_name parameter. (Maybe they understood it to be meant for the name by which natives knew the area before the Europeans arrived.) For what it's worth, the address of the IP user whose edit you referenced pegs that user's location to Honduras.

On the other hand, the Spanish article provides sources for the etymology, so the same information would be a useful addition to this article's history section. Largoplazo (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Mayor-council is outdated

Information for the mayor-council is outdated. As of February 2022 the mayor, vice mayor and aldermen are as follows:

Mayor - Roberto Contreras (LIBRE)

Vice Mayor - Omar Menjivar (LIBRE)

Aldermen - Ericelda Arias (LIBRE), Julio Montessi (LIBRE), Carmen Paz (LIBRE), Vicente López (LIBRE), Armando Calidonio (PNH), Maríe Vega (LIBRE), Francis Rodríguez (PNH), Antonio Rivera (PLH), Nora Collins (LIBRE), and Luis Cardona (PNH) in that order, according to La Gaceta.

TheKeeperOfBooks (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)TheKeeperOfBooks

Sister Cities

To add San Pedro Sula’s sister cities. 45.4.86.133 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

HDI

The Human Development Index(HDI) for the city is outdated. The number appearing below, is one from 2007, being the HDI for the city about 15 years ago. 45.4.86.133 (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)