User:Sabwoo/Sandbox

Links to Articles of Interest
My User Page My Talk Page United States Page has links to any State Page
 * Arizona
 * Nevada
 * New Mexico
 * Utah

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - email to Dilts 1, no reply
There are seven articles for counties listed in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia. Those seven articles are your creation, and you have continued to support them by making changes. I particularly like the maps you added.

But I have a disagreement with those seven articles. They are listed in the article for Arizona, indicating that they were counties of Arizona. The titles of those seven articles state very clearly that they were counties of Arizona. At first I edited those articles to show that none of them were counties of Arizona. I believe the facts show this. Then I thought the problem is the title of the articles, so it needs to be changed. Finally I realized that the basic premiss of the articles is faulty, they were never counties of Arizona. I notice that in your continuing editing, you left my wording remain in those articles.

Suppose that you had an ancestor living on the land that would one day become Arizona, that is before 1863. He would have lived in New Mexico Territory in one of those seven counties, but it would have been a New Mexico county. Any records that he would have generated, would be sent to the county offices of that New Mexico county.

Then in 1863, everything changed. Arizona Territory was created from the western half of New Mexico Territory. All counties that had existed before on that land were discontinued. Soon Arizona created four new counties for this new territory - Mohave, Yavapai, Yuma, and Pima.

Your hypothetical ancestor would have lived in one of those four Arizona counties. Any records that he generated would be sent to the county offices of that Arizona county. None of those four Arizona counties have been discontinued, but over the years have been divided up until Arizona now has 15 counties. Only one county has been discontinued: Pah-Ute.

For me, the purpose of the Family Search Wiki is to identify the location where records may be found, so that those who don't know may be led to the right location. I don't believe those seven articles above help to do this.

The information in those seven articles is good information, but it really belongs in the New Mexico county articles. I propose to transfer that information, then remove those seven Arizona articles. But I didn't want to proceed with this, without giving you a chance to explain your side of things. I would like for this to be done by agreement. Please let me know.

I also see that you are a big contributor for three other articles in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla.

Since those three counties never existed, those articles do not lead to finding any records. They are not helpful. I propose to remove those three articles. But again, I ask for your side of the story, before I proceed. Please let me know.

In the end, I intend to have only two articles listed - Pah-Ute and Rio Virgin. The only reason Rio Virgin will be listed, is that it incorrectly covered land in Arizona and therefore might have some records of Arizona. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy.

I have come to the conclusion that those ten articles should be removed from the Arizona article as "Extinct or Renamed Counties." It appears that you believe otherwise. I would appreciate understanding your reasons and working together to make the Arizona article better.

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Dsammy 1
I see that you are a contributor to three articles in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. For me, the purpose of the Family Search Wiki is to identify the location where records may be found, so that those who don't know may be led to the right location. I don't believe those three articles above help to do this.

Since those three counties never existed, those articles do not lead to finding any records. They are not helpful. I propose to remove those three articles. But before I proceed, I ask for your side of the story. I would like for this to be done by agreement. Please let me know.

In the end, I intend to have only two articles listed - Pah-Ute and Rio Virgin. The only reason Rio Virgin will be listed, is that it incorrectly covered land in Arizona and therefore might have some records of Arizona. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy.

I have come to the conclusion that those three articles should be removed from the Arizona article as "Extinct or Renamed Counties." It appears that you believe otherwise. I would appreciate understanding your reasons and working together to make the Arizona article better.


 * They STAY. Part of Rio Virgin County was northwest corner of Arizona after it was abolished after the boundaries of Utah Territory was changed when state of Nevada was created. It is not 100 percent Nevada. Please restore it. Of all states, you picked on Arizona to try to delete. It does NOT means the search for records. Wiki is "Reference Wiki" and it is stated as such, meaning not just the records, but also research to guide anyone looking for right directions. You want to remove the road signs, setting the researchers on roads to nowhere! Dsammy 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Dilts 2
There are seven articles for counties listed in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia. These seven articles are your creation, and you have continued to support them by making changes. Perhaps you feel a closeness to them. I particularly like the maps you added.

But I have a disagreement with these seven articles. They are listed in Arizona, indicating that they were counties of Arizona. The titles of these seven articles very clearly state that they were counties of Arizona. But actually, all of these seven were counties of New Mexico. They covered land which later was in Arizona and Nevada, but any records created were sent to their respective New Mexico county offices.

When Arizona became a territory, all seven of these counties were discontinued in Arizona and completely replaced. None of these seven counties were ever Arizona counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. For me, the purpose of the Family Search Wiki is to identify the location where records may be found, so that those who don't know may be led to the right location. I don't believe these seven articles help to do this.

The information in the body of these seven articles is good information, but that information belongs in the New Mexico county articles. I propose to transfer that information, then remove these seven counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them. But I don’t want to proceed with this, without giving you a chance to explain your side of things. I am not perfect and maybe I have overlooked something. I would like for this to be done by agreement. Please let me know.

There are three other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I know you have made changes to these and maybe have a closeness for them as well. But none of these three were ever counties of Arizona, they were only “proposed counties” that were rejected. No records were ever created for these counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these three counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

Neither of the above proposals have yet been done. I would appreciate understanding your acceptance or opposition and why. I would like to work with you on making the Arizona article better. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy.


 * Thank you for kindly waiting to get my point of view. The real question here is NOT whether a county was ever part of Arizona, nor is it a question of whether a county ever existed. Think more like a genealogical researcher (or pre-Arizona recorder of deeds), and less like a dictionary writer. The real question is how might a reader possibly look up such counties, and in which repositories might they find their ancestors? Or, another possible way of looking at the question would be to ask if there is a deed or other official paper with a supposedly purely New Mexico county mentioned on it even though the ancestor actually lived in what later became Arizona. If so, would not the logical place to look for such a deed be in the county seat of the said NM county? Moreover, a certain fort was a few hundred meters into modern Arizona, but was briefly a New Mexico county's seat. We need to teach readers that boundaries change, borders can get confusing, and that smart genealogists sometimes need to hunt for records outside of modern boundaries. We need to teach readers that sometimes their ancestors records are outside of Arizona, especially if their ancestor lived in AZ prior to the time Arizona was created. Although it is not likely someone living on the Arizona strip ever conducted business in Taos, New Mexico, it is possible, and listing Taos as a former county in what eventually became Arizona is a way of alerting readers to the possibilities. I would strongly resist any effort to de-list pre-Arizona counties because it would hide potential places to look for an ancestor's records. We need to look for more ways to inform readers about potential genealogical record repositories. We need to avoid hiding potential repositories behind inflexible definitions of what goes where and when geographically. For new genealogists, clinging to legal definitions of modern boundaries is not informative about where to look for records created BEFORE those boundaries were drawn.


 * Would you be willing to explore other alternatives? If you cannot abide "Extinct" counties, feel welcome to find a more appropriate label for the group. But the solution is NOT to delete references to counties that might be listed on an ancestor's deed, nor to pretend New Mexico (and Mexico, and New Spain, and Spain) never had jurisdiction over what is now Arizona. Nor would it be appropriate to pretend researchers for ancestors living in Las Vegas should never ever look in Arizona repositories for pre-Nevada Las Vegas sources.


 * The most unchanged state is Delaware. Since 1776 her three counties have never changed. Yet Delaware was part of Pennsylvania, Maryland, The Dominion of New England, New Netherland, and New Sweden--so good researchers need to know to also look in the appropriate repositories in Philadelphia, Annapolis, Boston, Amsterdam, and Stockholm to find all the records of their early colonial Delaware ancestors. EVERY state has changed jurisdictions and we need to inform our readers about that. So I absolutely oppose deleting references to extinct counties even if they were technically in other states.


 * Please show me the positive way you plan to inform new Arizona researchers about New Mexico repositories with their ancestors' names on their records. Please make me a better offer than negatively deleting/hiding pages to which I am "close." I'm willing to listen and consider if you can come up with a better way to inform readers about changing jurisdictions, but until then, please NO deletion requests, no de-listings of extinct counties pages, and no tranferring of this kind of information from Arizona to New Mexico pages. I cannot see how your proposal will possibly alert new genealogists about jurisdiction changes and the need to search possible alternative repositories for early Arizona ancestors. To my way of thinking it would seriously hold-back new genealogists rather than helping them. For the new genealogist who has no clue that Arizona was ever considered part of New Mexico, where do they pick up that insight? Your proposal would seem to require them to somehow magically know that they must look in New Mexico repositories for some records of ancestors who lived in what later became Arizona. If we don't tell them about this problem on the Arizona pages, then how do they find out?


 * This problem is messy. I am painfully aware that "Taos County, Arizona" will NEVER be found on any deed or other official paper. But "Taos County" COULD appear on a deed of someone who lived in what later became Arizona. If Taos County could be on their deed I beilieve such an odd page title as "Taos County, Arizona" is appropriate and for practical purposes REQUIRED. I'm willing to be messy and create fictional county-state names if that is the best way to help me teach people that they also need to look for their "Arizona" ancestor in Taos, New Mexico repositories. If you can find a better way to teach this concept to new genealogists -- please convince me. Otherwise, please edit Arizona's extinct counties pages only in a positive way by enhancing their content. Please avoid negative editing that deletes, transfers to another state, or in any fashion hides the concept such pages are trying to teach from new genealogists seeking records of their ancestors in what eventually became Arizona.


 * Would you feel any better about:
 * "Taos County (NM), Arizona"
 * "Taos (NM) County, Arizona"
 * "Taos County, New Mexico in Arizona"(in navboxes "Taos, NM in AZ")
 * or something similar as a page title and extinct county link in navboxes at the bottom of all AZ county pages? Would you let me keep such pages for Arizona if we could find a compromise on their titles? DiltsGD 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Dsammy 2
From your strongly worded reply to my first message, I see that you really care about the Arizona article in the Research Wiki. I care also. I live in Arizona and my family has been here since 1882, that is why I try to improve the Arizona article.

But I am at a loss as to why you feel the way you do. Your reply was confusing to me. I want to understanding your reasoning. So, let me state again in more detail what I propose to do, then you tell me what it is you object to and why. I am not perfect and maybe I have overlooked something. Please let me know.

It seems you believe that I want to delete Rio Virgin County. Not true, I would not delete it. I want to keep it. Rio Virgin County was created by Utah, but also included land outside of Utah in present day Arizona and Nevada. Land records created for Arizona and Nevada were sent to the Rio Virgin County offices. I want Rio Virgin County listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona. I propose to leave things the way they are for Rio Virgin County.

I also want Pah-Ute County listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona. It was created by Arizona and covered land in present day Arizona and Nevada, some of the same land covered by Rio Virgin County. Records were created for land in Arizona and Nevada that were sent to the Pah-Ute County offices. I propose to leave things the way they are for Pah-Ute County.

There are seven other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia. All of these seven counties were created by New Mexico, but covered land which later was in Arizona and Nevada. Any records created were sent to their respective New Mexico county offices. When Arizona became a territory, all seven of these counties were discontinued in Arizona and replaced. None of these seven counties were ever Arizona counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these seven counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

There are also three other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I know you have made many changes to these and maybe have a closeness for them. But none of these three counties were ever counties of Arizona, they were “proposed counties” that were rejected. They were never created, so no records were created for these counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

None of the above proposals have yet been done. I would appreciate understanding your reasons for opposing any of this. I would like to work with you on making the Arizona article better. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy.

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Dilts 3
I was pleasantly surprised to receive your reply. It was a great reply and I can agree with most everything you said. If I understand you correctly, you are very concerned in teaching those new to genealogy about historical boundary changes and previous jurisdictions. That way, they will learn where the records can be found. I can’t agree more, we see eye to eye on this. For me, the biggest reason for the Research Wiki is to show where the records are located. I hope we can work together to accomplish this.

You are also right about something else. If we just delete those seven fictitious “Arizona” counties, those new to genealogy will not understand the previous jurisdictions before Arizona was created. I don’t want that to happen either. I propose we put on HOLD any removing and deleting of county articles while we come to agreement.

I do like what you say - teach everyone about the previous jurisdictions and where to find the records. Your heart is in the right place and your goal is worthy, but your method is too short-sighted. It only tries to solve the one change of jurisdiction and boundaries. That is from New Mexico to Arizona in 1863. What about the change from Mexico to New Mexico, or the earlier Spain to Mexico. And then there are all the changes to the Arizona counties since Arizona was created. Your method doesn’t address any of these changes, but yet each one brings new places where records are kept.

We both agree on the goal - to explain the previous jurisdictions and where records are located. To do this, I propose the following three step plan.
 * I will begin to compile a list of ideas to accomplish this goal and publish them on my Talk Page. You are free to add additional ideas. Two ideas are shown here.
 * Add more maps showing previous jurisdictions. Example: Pima County History (scroll down)
 * In the HISTORY section of the location articles, explain each jurisdictional change and make a link if possible to the record repository. Example: Arizona Atlas of Historical County Boundaries
 * I will begin to implement the above ideas on the real Arizona counties. You are free to help.
 * You monitor the progress towards the goal. When sufficient progress has been made, you delete those seven fictitious “Arizona” counties. Or let me know and I will have them deleted.

I was gradually moving toward the above anyway, but your challenge to come up with a better plan has focused my efforts. I think this plan should be extended to Nevada where there are also some fictitious counties. I would like to work together with you on this. Please let me know.


 * Good plan! I like it. As long as every "real" Arizona county clearly explains (including maps or at least links to the maps) about all the other places records might be housed because of jurisdiction changes I can see eventually doing away with the fictional county pages. Especially since that means to cover the topic the material that now appears on a single fictional county page will be repeated (better coverage) on each of the many real county pages. We must be careful to find a way of showing the pre-Arizona maps of New Mexico counties (and Mexico, and New Spain, and Spain) in what later became Arizona so they will not be too confusing to people reading about them on the pages of each of their real Arizona counties.


 * Please take a look at the many other places in the U.S. with jurisdiction changes for the best ideas about how to teach the concept. For example, Haverhill, Essex, MA was once part of Norfolk (old) County in the MA Bay Colony. Colorado was created from parts of NM, KS, NE, and UT and has some very confusing jurisdiction changes. These and any others may not be great examples, but let's consider different ways to deal with the problem and find the BEST ways teach about jurisdiction changes.


 * The three counties that were listed in the Arizona organic bill that never passed still may be useful more for historical reference than any other reason. No one ever lived there, but at least in Mowrey's mind they were Arizona counties. I like being thorough because it lets readers know we've covered the possibilities. For example, the Confederate States were also tinkering around with Mesilla County, Arizona. The Kansas Historical Society has a list of extinct Kansas/Colorado counties, some of which were authorized but never actually organized. I find the list very informative. I'm unlikely to ever find an ancestor with a deed in such a county, but I think it wise to at least know there was talk about such counties in case something comes up in a diary or letter of an ancestor. See also the way the Nevada archives deal with their extinct county history--very thorough and open minded about Utah-California-Arizona jurisdictions. So I believe it is worthwhile to have historical references to failed-or-never-approved-or-organized Arizona counties as well as the others that existed briefly in reality before going extinct such a Pah-Ute. DiltsGD 22:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Conversation 2
I have already started working on "the plan". I have compiled some information for the 1846 to 1863 time period and the 1863 to Now period. I created a new article entitled Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona with a link on the Arizona page, the second paragraph down from the "Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona." Check it out.

I intend to continue work on this article. Need to add the time period that Spain and Mexico controlled the land that became Arizona up thru 1846. What you said about wanting this to not be confusing is true. Doesn't help others if they can't understand it. Also I want to add maps for each change of jurisdiction. Or maybe an animated GIF that will cycle thru all the maps. If I am going to add maps, I would rather do this for the one article I just created. But it will be easy to add links from each county page.

Also intend to update all the real counties' history of jurisdictional changes. Some of that is there already. I just want to make sure it is complete and has the records repositories listed. Most of this will duplicate the information on the article I just created, but it will give "better coverage."

For me, the most important reason for the Family Search Wiki is to point those new to genealogy to where the records are. Not much interested in putting in articles to be historically accurate if it doesn't result in a location for records. I suppose we disagree on this. But I do see the three "proposed counties" are in a different category from the seven "fictional counties", at least they are historical.Sabwoo 01:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your new page is good. I like it. It is clear and helpful. It has a lot of information. Link each "real" county to the new page. I agree the new page needs a map or set of maps, but I don't know how to create animated maps.


 * I can imagine a reader having heard of "Mesilla" County and wondering about it even though it was never authorized or organized. So I see value in listing such historical but never existed places. I think I understand your concern because the pictures/stories of who/what a county was named for seem to me to have no practical use for genealogists. For a long time I deleted those as irrelevant to genealogy, but they have become so ubiquitous on our Wiki I have mostly given up. A little bit of irrelevant historical information sometimes adds interest to Wiki articles. DiltsGD 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Dsammy 3
Dsammy

You have chosen to ignore my last message to compromise on the issue of the "Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona". Your reply to the message before that was strongly worded, but very muddled in why you felt the way you did. I would like to start again so that we might settle this issue.

Since my last message to you, I have been doing some research on the problem. I find that there were a total of 10 proposals of one form or another sent to the US Congress to make Arizona a territory. All of them rejected and none of them contained maps of any proposed counties. You only recorded one of those, the one Sylvester Mowry was involved with.

Also it is incorrect that Mowry drew up a map showing the four proposed counties: Castle Dome, Ewell, Mesilla, and Dona Ana. He did draw up a map, but it did not have any proposed counties on it. The map in question was drawn up in 1860 at the unofficial convention in Tucson to accompany the provisional constitution of Arizona Territory that was adopted.

I have created a new article, called Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona. It tells about this convention in 1860 and shows the map of those proposed counties. It also tells of the next year in 1861 about the proposed Arizona Territory seceding from the USA. Then their acceptance by the Confederacy as a Territory. All of this, showing the maps involved. However, it does not include any the 10 failed proposals to the US Congress.

I invite you to check out the article Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona. I invite you to read all my messages and reply so that we might work on this issue together. I invite you to delete your incorrectly worded county articles: Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I invite you to chose instead the article Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona. Please let me know. Thank you.--Sabwoo 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - continuing conversation - Dsammy 4
Dsammy

You have continued to ignore my attempts to resolve this difficulty. Those four articles on the proposed counties were factually incorrect, but the thing that bothered me the most was that those articles as they had been written did not lead to any records. Now I have updated those articles to make them correct. And I can see that they just might lead to some records. As a result, I now withdraw any desire to remove those four articles from the Family Search Wiki. Although I did all of the work, I do not hold any grudge. I hope we can work peaceably together if our paths ever cross in the future. Sabwoo 22:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)