Talk:Tucson, Arizona

Version 2

Commentary by Version 2 proponent(s):

Given that Tucson is a major metropolitan area in the modern (and anglo-dominated, if you will) U.S., the Native American material, while worthy of inclusion, is not worthy of "top billing" in the introductory, definitional section above the subheaded sections and table of contents. Native Americans are among several minorities in the Tucson area; they are not dominant in any way. Similarly, while the O'odham language speakers' name for Tucson deserves mention, and is included in the top paragraph in a historical context explaining the modern name, it is not of sufficient encyclopedic significance to justify disrupting the introductory sentence with a translation in which most Wikipedia readers will have only a passing interest. BTW, further background can be found on Talk:Mesa, Arizona, where a similar dispute erupted.--Gary D 21:47, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Version 2 text:

(The full form of the Version 2 article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tucson%2C_Arizona&oldid=8472967 )

Tucson (pronounced /tusʊn/) is a city and the county seat of Pima County, Arizona. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 486,699, with a metropolitan-area population of 843,746. A July 1, 2003 Census estimate puts the city's population at 507,658. It is the largest city in southern Arizona, and the second largest in the state after Phoenix. The name Tucson comes via Spanish from the O'odham, cuk Ṣon, meaning "Black Foothills," a reference to the mostly volcanic mountains on the west side of the city. The most notable of these foothills is Sentinel Peak, better known as "A Mountain" because it sports a large letter A in honor of the University of Arizona. Tucson is sometimes referred to as "The Old Pueblo".

==History==

Tucson was originally inhabited around 7000 BC by early Paleo-Indians, and later replaced by groups designated by archaeologists as the Hohokam. Jesuit missionary Eusebio Francisco Kino visited the area in 1692, and founded the Mission San Xavier del Bac in 1700. The Spanish established a presidio (fort) in 1776 and the town came to be called "Tucson." Tucson became a part of Mexico after Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821. ... [rest of section unchanged]

* * *

==Demographics==

[Add at end of first paragraph in section] The Native American inhabitants in the area include [quantity] Tohono O'odham, living in the city, on the nearby San Xavier reservation, and in the Tohono O'odham Nation, who may be descendants of the prehistoric inhabitants, as well as 6,800 Yaqui, living in the city (largely in the Old Pascua and Barrio Libre neighborhoods), on the nearby Pascua Yaqui reservation, and in the Yoem Pueblo in the town of Marana, most of whom trace their local ancestry back to arrivals in the late 1800s fleeing persecution in Mexico.

* * *

==Miscellaneous==

[Put this section in just before the "famous people" section]

Tucson is joined by I-10 to Phoenix, and forms one endpoint of a 100-mile corridor of increasingly suburbanized areas along that highway which once traversed largely undeveloped desert.

Two United States Navy vessels have been named USS Tucson in honor of the city.

Version 2 support (sign here):

1. --Gary D 00:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

   • Tucson is not as Anglo-dominated as you like to think. While over 2% of the city's inhabitants are Native American (most of them Tohono O'odham), if you include the rest of the urban area as well as places for which it is the nearest city (thus excluding all places which are closer to Phoenix, Yuma, etc. than to Tucson) it's more like 15% of the population (actual speakers of Tohono O'odham are more like 7% of the population of this "Greater Tucson"). A linguistic group which includes 7% of the population of a greater urban area does, in my view, warrant top-billed inclusion because it is still relevant to the city in a modern context. What you say makes it sound like "Native Americans are equal to old-fashionedness, only a handful of people speak the O'odham language and most of them are old people, and most of the O'odham were either killed a long time ago or moved to reservations", which is something I have heard many times before but is most definitely *not* true. They are still here, and they still speak their language, in fact almost all Tohono O'odham children have the language as their native language (sometimes along with English), whereas the baby boomer generation didn't even have that language retention rate. Also, population trends indicate that the O'odham population growth rate is higher than the Anglo population growth rate for a number of reasons (cultural, more O'odham live in rural or semirural communities where marriage is more common and people have more children), and by 2050 there will be perhaps 100000 O'odham and perhaps 80000 speakers of the language. In the 1940s, the Navajo population nearly doubled in a matter of two or three decades (they started at the size the O'odham are now, after the sudden growth there were 300000), and some experts believe that the same will occur for any semi-rural Native American group that reaches a similar population, many have predicted that the same will happen to the O'odham population by the 2030s. So in conclusion, you highly exaggerate "anglo domination", and you do not seem to realise the continued place the O'odham language - which is used on all roadsigns in the 2.8 million acre Tohono O'odham Nation - has in modern society. --Node 01:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. Contains info I wanted included, presented in a clear manner. --ABQCat 00:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Extreme minority languages are like extreme minority scientific theories, present them but don't exaggerate importance. Stan 00:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   • I am extreme-ly offended by your reference to this language as an "extreme minority language". It has over 35000 speakers, while this city has less than 500000 inhabitants. It still has much relevance in the modern context of the city, where approximately 14500 Native Americans, mostly Tohono O'odham, live, and unlike many Native American languages in other parts of the country, the O'odham language is growing rather than shrinking, a trend it shares with other languages of the Southwest such as Navajo and Havasupai. Perhaps somewhere between 5000 and 10000 people who live in the city call it by the O'odham name on a regular basis, and if you count people who live within 100 miles, the number jumps to perhaps 30000. --Node 01:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • "The rule I would suggest is that parenthesized names in other languages should be in the lead if they are used by at least, say, 10% of the current local population" -- Stan Shebs. So now are you going back on what you said? Between 7 and 15% of the population of the "Greater Tucson area" speaks this as their first language. References in literature date back thousands of years, mentioning Cuk Ṣon as the village at the base of the holy mountain Vav Kivalik (English "Baboquivari"), Vav Kivalik being the place where the O'odham emerged from the earth and where I'itoi lives, Cuk Ṣon thus having significance as a place for pilgrims to stay. --Node 18:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4. Let's deal with this once and for all. This version actually gives more substantial treatment to the O'odham name. Fuzheado | Talk 01:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   • Perhaps you have been mislead by Gary D. Version 1 is not the original proposed version from this argument: it has been changed quite a bit since. How exactly does Version 2 give more substantial treatment to the name? Both give a detailed history of the name, in fact Version 1 says "from O'odham name for the city" while Version 2 says "from the O'odham". --Node 01:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
6. V2 general approach seems appropriate. Keep the first sentence clean and readable. It doesn't need the minority/original name there - further down the intro para suffices. Rd232 12:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. I prefer Version 2, although I'd like its "History" section to incorporate this bit of history from Version 1: "The area around what is now Tucson has been inhabited since pre-historic times, originally by the Hohokam, and more recently by groups such as the Tohono O'odham, who may be descendants of the Hohokam..." (though I've deleted the duplicate wikilink to Hohokam). I didn't notice in Version 2 the explanation of the relationship between the Hohokam and the Tohono O'odham. As for language, the bickering over population percentage seems immaterial to me. I'm sure some towns in the Southwest have majority Spanish-speaking residents. So what? We use their official names (and the Los Angeles, California article doesn't give an English translation in the lead paragraph). As for the original name, the article on New York City mentions its origin as "New Amsterdam (Nieuw Amsterdam)" but, again, not in the lead. Side note, thanks to whoever did the work to set this up and make it so easy for RfC visitors to vote intelligently. JamesMLane 17:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Ooh, I'm not too modest to rush in and take a bow: you're quite welcome for the setup form. I hate it when I come in from the RfC page wanting to be helpful but finding only a battlefield in chaos on the talk page. I thought this setup quite workable, I'm glad you like it, and thanks for mentioning it. --Gary D 20:28, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

8. I'm glad to see a discussion of this finally possibly coming to a resolution, and if version 2 becomes the appropriate one, I'd like to see many of the city articles from Arizona that include a version 1-style opening to be modified. I'd like to be clear that I don't oppose including information relevant to the article, I just oppose the inclusion of the alternate names for a place as V1 has it. I feel that format should be reserved for when the actual/official name for a city is in another language (for example, Munich, which lists the German name for the city as that is how the city is officially known.) This means that a city whose name is in English should not have a second name listed in the English wikipedia. If Tucson was listed in an O'odham wikipedia, then the article name should be Chuk Shon and it should include (English: Tucson) in the opening. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 22:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Agree with Rd232 Arminius 06:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. A. D. Hair 06:11, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
11. As Rd232. [[User:Rdsmith4|]] 20:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Of the two this seeems best. A mention that the non-English name Tohono O'odham is used by the Tohono O'odham population seems appropriate in the section which mentions the origin of the name in teh first paragraph, though, as an aside "so Tohono O'odham is used by that population" Jamesday 21:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. →Raul654 21:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user also attempted to vote. Please log in.

Vote tally

At the close of the week of voting, eight votes were cast for Version 1 and thirteen votes were cast for Version 2. An additional vote for Version 2 from an anon user was thrown out. Once again, thanks to everyone who participated.

Gary D's comments on the vote: Though we did not anticipate this issue ahead of time (and though this may seem like a victor's phony largesse), I agree with tossing out the anon vote, because otherwise we would have the specter of sockpuppet voting. I would look similarly askance at any registered users whose vote was the first or among the very first of their edits. This vote has been instructive for me, because though Version 2 prevailed, Node has shown that he is not a lone voice in the wilderness and that his approach commands a healthy amount of support. --Gary D 01:10, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

What specter of a sock puppet voting? As a developer I checked, confirmed that it was a regular user who had not logged in and so informed Node. Jamesday 15:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Somebody suggested that, while it may have been a regular user who forgot to log in, if we let their vote stay it might appear as a sockpuppet, and in addition to that the vote wouldn'tve made a difference in the outcome. --Node 01:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments on proposed versions, or other ideas:

1. It has been stated earlier that Version 1 is confusing and somehow implies that the Tohono O'odham name for Tucson is a common second name in English. Can anybody elaborate on this? --Node 01:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Node, I think perhaps it's not quite polite to not respect the votes of those who have already cast their votes. If you'd like to convince them (rather than push them farther into their already determined vote), can you perhaps address their criticisms in a more mature and respectful manner? I understand you're addressing their criticisms, but please try to be as respectful as possible. I fear the comments you made in response to the votes they cast may not be perceived as "respectful". It was good to work with you on coming up with compromise material, and I'm quite pleased that we were able to introduce a more rounded, complete picture of Tucson in the process. --ABQCat 02:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no policy against or even taboo towards responding to people's comments that went along with their vote. --Node 03:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Node, I agree with your opinion here, but you have come across on this page as a bit snappy - perhaps you should take some time off and do something else you enjoy? --Ifoolyou 02:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. I'll repeat here a concern that I've previously stated and which prevents my support of version 1 (as currently laid out): it's too long for an introductory statement. The table of contents (for me, high screen resolution) doesn't even appear until you scroll down slightly. If version 1 was broken into two sections with information layout remaining the same but with the table of contents in the middle, I would consider supporting it. Version 2 has my continuing support as it contains the historical and demographic material I felt was important and does so in a more common layout format. --ABQCat 02:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (modified layout by changing paragraphs into sections) There, how's that? --Node 03:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently Node has it in his head that it's ok to change my statements on a talk page and then take credit for the statement. Leave my comment alone - I didn't vote for this version, but I am clearly a proponent of it because I helped create it. It is intensely rude to remove my comments from the talk page. Original comment: "This version of the introductory paragraph was crafted primarily so that the O'odham language name for Tucson would receive top billing only under the circumstance that the O'odham cultural importance to the city was immediately addressed. It's apropriateness as an introduction was not my primary concern, but instead the main concern was to present a rounded, complete picture of the history of Tucson along with Native cultural influences. --ABQCat 02:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

--ABQCat 08:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Since when did I take credit for your statement? "advocate" is a synonym of "proponent", and I have never heard of an "advocate" for something who votes against it --Node 18:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Node, which part of DONT DELETE MY COMMENTS do you not understand? I don't care if you don't agree with what I have to say, it's RUDE to remove my comments, and is bad wikiconduct. Prior comment: "::*Node, it's not uncommon for certain circumstances to lead someone who SUPPORTS something to vote against it. It happens a lot in politics, and in this case it happened because I couldn't (in good conscience) support version 1 OVER version 2, but as I was involved in crafting it (though you seem intent upon marginalizing my contribution) I felt obliged to explain the reasoning behind version 1. In any event, by deleting my comment you've lost whatever credibility you'd gained with me. --ABQCat 18:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)" --ABQCat 19:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I understand every part of it. After you told me not to delete them, I had deleted them once. So then, rather than deleting them, I just moved them to the comments section. Very important distinction - deletion of comments is generally a bad thing and a big mistake on my part, but moving of comments is commonplace. And, regardless of whether or not you are a proponent of Version 1 (which I still believe you are not, but I guess that's debatable), I think that, having voted for Version 1, my text where I advocate for version 1 is more qualified to appear as the proponent's description than is yours, and also I believe my text speaks more strongly. If you really want that much for your comment to be under that section, I guess it's OK, but I personally don't feel it belongs there. --Node 21:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re gK's comment with his vote for Version 1 -- "Accuracy should be the only criteria that needs to be used for this part of an encyclopedia entry." -- Is there any question about the accuracy of either version? What causes this type of dispute is that accuracy isn't the only criterion. Presumably there are lots and lots of other accurate statements in the article. They can't all be in the lead section. I was assuming that the issue was the order in which various accurate facts would be presented. JamesMLane 17:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that either version was inaccurate. What I was trying to suggest is that it seemed to me that some of the reasoning behind making either choice looked like the people were forgetting that this was for an encyclopedia article. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 18:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• gK, What exactly do you mean by this? My statements were meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response to Gary D's statements. I don't believe the percentage is really relevant - it seems to me that all that's relevant is that it's accurate. --Node 21:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clarification

Something that I think is getting lost in some of the discussion here is that the O'odham name is not simply the name used by a small linguistic minority, but is the origin of the English name of the city. This, I believe, differentiates the Tucson case from some others with which it has been compared (e.g., Mesa, Arizona). —Tkinias 09:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that under proposal 1, there is a significant "etymology of Tucson" section. In addition, the etymology receives prominent mention in proposal 2 in the first paragraph. It's not being overlooked by any means (in the proposals), though some people discussing the O'odham origins of the name may not understand it to be the ultimate origin of the modern English name. --ABQCat 18:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that the proposals overlooked this, but that some participants in the discussion seemed to be missing the significance (based on the comparison with Mesa, which is not a name of Amerind origin). —Tkinias 18:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm wondering who pronounces Tucson as /ˈtusʊn/. The pronunciation which seems most familiar to me (I've lived in Phoenix for almost twenty years) is /ˈtusɑn/. /ˈtusɔn/ wouldn't be strange to hear, but with the /ʊ/ just sounds a bit odd to my ear. OTOH, I haven't had much contact with old Anglo folks from Tucson, so maybe that's how the old-timers say it. Any Anglos from Tucson here with a good ear for phonetics?

On a related note, what's IPA for Cuk Ṣon? My guess would be /tʃuk ʃon/ based on the "chuk shon" mentioned in the article, but I don't have a lot of confidence that this corresponds too closely to the real O'odham pronunciation. —Tkinias 07:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Tkinias. The IPA for Cuk Ṣon is: /ʧʊk ʆɔn/. I'm not entirely sure about the ʆ, but it's distinct from the English "sh" sound... maybe how you'd say the English "sh" if you had no teeth?

I agree about the /u/ in Tucson - I have never heard it with /ʊ/. As far as the second syllable, I have heard a lot of variations, including pronouncing it without a vowel (ie, syllabic n) --Node 22:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the Ṣ possibly the same as /ɬ/ in Diné? That sometimes sounds to Anglophones a bit like "sh"...

Definitely not - it's a true esh-like sound (I know a bit of Navajo too; btw the official English name used by the Navajo Nation is "Navajo", so you may use that and be politically correct at the same time (; )

OK. Hmm. I'll dig around a bit. In re "Navajo", we've got enough American Indian scholars in my department that I just get used to saying "Diné". (And shudder when TV folks refer to "Dine" [as in "eat dinner"].) —Tkinias 03:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Ṣ is a retroflex consonant [ʂ], according to some linguistics course Web sites I've found. (Interestingly, the [ʧ]–[t] distinction is nonphonemic in O'odham... Learn something new every day!) —Tkinias 03:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to put /ˈtusɑn/ in as English pronunciation and note alternate pronunciations. —Tkinias 22:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's fine with me. --Node 22:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other Arizona and nearby cities.

Since the discussion here ended, I modified some other city articles to have a similar format. node_ue reverted all my changes, calling most of them vandalism. I'd very much like to see a consistency on the wikipedia, so that when another language name is listed for a place, it is because the article's name is a translation into English, rather than listing the various language names for a place. I think that should be done in a separate line, so as to avoid clouding up the first line. For example, with Munich, we only include the German name of München immediately after the English article title, rather than also including, for example, its Italian name of Monaco. I felt that the discussion here applied to the further city articles. Apparantly node did not. I think that a separate discussion at each city article is a little too much hassle, especially since no information is being deleted -- just moved to a different place in the article. However, what I most strongly object to is the characterization of it as vandalism. I did not vandalise the wikipedia. node said the following on IRC: "Now, I am willing to discuss the issue of place names calmly and rationally. IF you aren't, then this can be handled another way which is me asking people to come support me on the talkpage and reinstating my changes without any hope of a compromise. I want to discuss this with you, but a discussion takes to people". Let's have that discussion now. The list of city names follows (I believe there are other city articles that could be included in this discussion, so this is not an all-inclusive list):

• Chuichu, Arizona
• Nogales, Arizona
• Sonoita, Arizona
• Gila Bend, Arizona
• Chandler, Arizona
• Goodyear, Arizona
• Tempe, Arizona
• Sacaton, Arizona
• Arizona City, Arizona
• Scottsdale, Arizona
• Church Rock, New Mexico
• Black Rock, New Mexico

There's also an issue with the entire article for Santa Rosa, Arizona being moved to Kaij Mek, Arizona that you may wish to comment on.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 21:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The vote here cannot apply to all other places in Arizona for reasons I believe I have already made clear to you. 1) Some of these places have a majority (ie, more than 50%) of the population who calls it by that name. 2) Some of these places have only a minority who calls it that, but they (or some part of them) are officially located on a reservation where that language is official. 3) Some of them have special significance for various other reasons. --Node 00:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Kmccoy: this issue was pretty much settled here. Tucson is a special case among other cities as its name is actually derived from the native language of indigeneous peoples. If other cities share a similar etymology, clearly the same sort of article format would be perfect. As to other city names, clearly it was not vandalism to edit for consistency.

The important thing here is that we list pertinent place names. For example, the argument that there are a lot of people who speak this language living in this city, so we should list the secondary language name of the city strikes me as a hollow argument. By this logic, nearly every city in Germany should include the English name (it's en.wikipedia.org), the German place name, and the Turkish place name because a large number of resident workers live there.

The difference is that the Turkish people aren't an indigenous minority, and for most cities the Turkish name matches the German or English name anyways.

Could we make an argument that unless the place name is historically or etymologically important (or is located in a country with a different official language than english - on a reservation would be an obvious exception/application of this rule), secondary names shouldn't be included? For example, the official language of New Mexico is English (and possibly Spanish - that's another unresolved issue) - so it makes sense to list place names in English and Spanish when appropriate.

No, you could not, because some of these places, while not having that as an official language, have a larger minority than Tucson (ie, 25 or 30 or 40%), and some have a majority (ie, greater than 50%). --Node 00:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To the issue Kmccoy brings up about the cities he lists: what does the city refer to itself as? If incorporated, this is an easy question. Otherwise state webpages typically list places in the state.

Further, Santa Rosa is now internally inconsistent. Check the place name against the offical language, location (reservation?), official US Census designation, and then the decision about what to call the article can be made. Once made, the article needs to be internally consistent such that the place is referred to by the FIRST name given and the name of the article.

Just some ideas to get the discussion going. I'm not attacking anyone's edits, but before we get to making further changes, we need to decide to be consistent.

Finally, please look at WikiProject Cities for some ideas on consistency and perhaps to enlarge the discussion to a more general case for all cities. --ABQCat 00:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm leaving notes on the talk pages of those people who voted above. I'm sure that this discussion should be held at a place like WikiProject Cities in the long run, but maybe a cursory discussion should continue here? Or maybe it should move immediately? I'm not really sure. :) kmccoy (talk) 01:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion for the other cities is the same as for Tucson: If a substantial number of residents call it something other than the official name, that fact is worth including in the article, but not in the opening sentence. The article should have the English name as its title, and should begin with that name in boldface. Another name should be included in the opening sentence only if it's the official name (hence the reference to München at the beginning of the Munich article). The "English name" is the name by which the place is known to most speakers of English, so that "Los Angeles" is the English name. In cases in which there are two different names with substantial currency among English speakers, it's appropriate to note the other name in the first sentence, or in a disambiguation note at the top, as in the case of Mumbai. With regard to the example raised by ABQCat (a German city with Turkish guest workers), I don't see why, somewhere down in the body of the article, we can't say, "Almost 20% of the residents are ethnic Turks, who refer to the city as ______." Then the Turkish name would be a redirect to this article. Some readers might happen to encounter only the Turkish name and not know that it's the same city as Hamburg or whatever; we should try to help those readers find the information they want. As for Santa Rosa/Kaij Mek, the article says that it's a CDP. That would suggest that the article title should be the name given it by the census, with a redirect at the other name. JamesMLane 06:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, even if 99% of the residents call it by something other than the English name, it can only be listed if its the official name? I think a lot of Wikipedians would disagree.

I came by, threw in a few quick reverts of the more egregious first-line translation anomalies in the list above. Not really in the mood to run votes on all these pages, but I'd be happy to participate. In the spirit of compromise, I would accept first-line translations in those places I have previously called "Indian towns" (now I'm just using that phrase to annoy Node ;-) ), where Native American ("NA") population is in the ninety percent range. When it comes to larger anglo cities, though (where the name does not derive from the NA as with Tucson), I think the NA translation in fact belongs toward the bottom of the article, not in the lead section (maybe in "Demographics," after the NA population percentage is given). I generally agree with the consensus I see building in this section. Practically speaking, it may be a matter of waiting out the agenda. And if someone wants to take this to a larger policy forum, that's great too. --Gary D 09:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Again, I find it a bit offensive that you refer to it as a "Native American name". That would be like saying that "Tucson" is the "European" name for the city, because all people in Europe call it that. The difference here is that not all Native Americans call these places by that name. There are hundreds of different Native American languages in North and South America in more than 10 different families, some of them no more closely related to one another than are English and Chinese.

Moving on to the issue at hand... why in the 90% range? Why not just a majority? I think it should definitely be included in the first line if over 50% of the place calls it by that name. And if you don't agree, I think another RfC vote is in order. --Node 00:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

node, no one is trying to deny the foreign-language names from being included in the articles. I think other language names for places can be "listed", just not in the first line as we have discussed. Also, I hope it's clear that while there may be a bit of misunderstanding as to what the proper way of describing these foreign languages is, I don't think there's any intention of offending you or native speakers of these languages, certainly not on my part and I doubt on Gary's part or anyone else's part. I think everyone involved is just trying to find a solution to the disagreement, so maybe we should just all assume the good faith of even those with whom we disagree?

With regard to the percentage arguments, I'm not sure I really buy into any of them. I think that there shouldn't be a percentage at which we should include a foreign-language name -- I think the name listed should be either the one by which the town is incorporated or, if it's a census-designated-place, the name by which the US Census knows it. However, your own argument isn't consistent with your edits, because you reverted Scottsdale, Arizona, which has a Native American population of 0.61%, and as you point out, the term Native American inludes a number of groups, including Pima speakers, so the actual number of them could actually be smaller.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 00:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because you believe that doesn't mean all Wikipedians will. As I noted before, parts of Scottsdale overlap with the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, so regardless of the percentage it is significant because of the location. --Node 00:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Node, just a quick question - is that the historical boundary of the SRPMIC or the current boundary? When we were discussing the case for Mesa, Arizona, I did a bit of research and found that the boundaries of Mesa and the SRPMIC are contiguous and do not overlap. Is it a similar case for Scottsdale? I can definitely believe that the historic boundaries were in different places, and the border may have crossed the people (similar to Guadalupe-Hidalgo situation with Mexican-Americans), but my opinion is that current boundaries are the best we can work with here. If you can find a good map, that would be terrific, otherwise maybe a textual description of the boundaries of the Community would help. Thanks. And thanks for signing your individual contributions above - it helps the clarity of discussion I think. --ABQCat 01:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current boundary. The Scottsdale Pavillions, for example, are in Scottsdale, but are on the reservation (thus, if you go shopping there, you don't pay state tax but you do pay municipal and reservation tax). --Node 01:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Node, I understand that not all Wikipedians are going to agree with me. It's clear, since you're a Wikipedian and you don't agree with me. Part of a discussion like this is to explain my beliefs and how I think Wikipedia should look. It's also clear that all Wikipedians don't agree with you, because I'm a Wikipedian and I'm not agreeing with you on some of these things. So, if you'd like, you can keep reminding us of that, but I just wanted you to know that I don't claim to speak for all Wikipedians. With regard to Scottsdale, wouldn't it be more informative to include a line in the first paragraph of the article explaining that parts of the city overlap with parts of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, for whom the city is known as Vaṣai S-veṣonĭ? I would think that would, in fact, do more justice to the article and to the foreign-language name, while maintaining the consistency that I would like to see. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I think however that if you really have your mind set on having the names moved even in places where the majority call it by that name, that a vote is in order because that's not something that could be resolved I don't think without a vote.

And also, while I don't personally find this offensive, I just felt you might like to know that some speakers of Native American languages find it offensive when Americans refer to their languages as "foreign", given that the word implies they're spoken by foreigners or in foreign countries. Again, I don't personally find it offensive. --Node 01:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My take on the matter, as expressed before, is the one most of us more or less agree upon: English language name as title, opening first paragraph in boldface; official name(s) second (third, fourth, ...; also in boldface) if other than English. The significance of significant minority languages is moot, and IMO shouldn't be considered except in extreme cases (Node's "99%"), which I haven't personally encountered.

As an aside, I agree with Node when he says that the term "Native American language" is silly at best, and that's saying nothing of calling Amerind languages "foreign." This is not to be pedantic, although I take unspeakable pleasure in doing so, but the very nature of an encyclopedia demands precision. ADH (t&m) 03:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

A question about the minority thing - they may still be minority languages in the nation, but if they're spoken by more than 50% of the locality in question, then they're a majority language there and I think it's a bit strange to require something extreme like 99% (or as suggested by somebody else 90% - this is probably more practical since even most reservation towns only have 95% due to imported work and people marking themselves as Hispanic [that's a complex issue - some Native Americans mark themselves as Hispanic instead for whatever reason]). But a question to make sure you don't have a double standard (some people I've talked to differentiate subconciously between minority language names in Europe and Asia and those in Africa and the Americas): Take the case of a theoretical small European country. The official language is English, but 65% of the people there speak Gqdgdish. Gqdgdish names aren't official, and they're always very different from the English name. Should the Gqdgdish name be included? --Node 06:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I said "foreign" mainly because I'm not familiar with these languages -- no offense was meant (nor silliness -- I'm rarely silly...). I'm really quite happy to refer to them in any way that is preferred, but it's been mentioned that "Native American language" is offensive, and it seems pretty awkward to refer to each language individually (Pima, Navajo, O'odham, etc.) In what way should I refer to this group of languages in this discussion that will not offend people? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 04:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Native American language" in and of itself isn't offensive (although some pedants will tell you that means any language spoken by somebody born in America; there should be a concise and inoffensive word to refer to the original peoples of the Americas like we have Asians, Europeans, Africans... but unfortunately there is none), it's when you use it as an adjective to describe something /of/ the languages, ie "Native American name" or "Native American grammar" or "She speaks Native American". --Node 06:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term you're looking for is "aboriginal", which is a relative term indicating the people of a place when it was "discovered" by Europeans. It is not, unfortunately, considered uncontroversial. - Amgine 06:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aboriginal doesn't imply they're from the Americas, as "Asian", "European", etc do for those continents. --Node 21:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Under Famous persons

The following was put on the main page, I'm moving it to the talk page:

Charlie Find should be John Fina, see: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/2095/

sheridan 20:26, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Permanent residency

I didn't think of this before, and I'm not calling for a new vote or anything, but I think it should be noted on the talkpage here that a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge portion of the white population of Tucson are only there for college and will leave after they graduate. A great number are from Phoenix and return there. However, with few exceptions the O'odham population is static, making Tucson the place longest inhabited by the same people in the Southwest (other continuously inhabited places have changed hands, however Tucson's O'odham history goes back very far, and nowadays Hohokam is generally believed to be an earlier, happier, richer stage of O'odham history). So of all the white residents, a great deal won't be staying, and those that will go back only one or two generations with few exceptions (many are transplants from Phoenix); with all the O'odham residents, their families have lived in that very spot for thousands of years going back hundreds of generations.

• ~35K students at UofA, many of them wouldn't have returned the Census cards they received in 2000 if they were in the dorms (~5500 student capacity). So, now we're talking (tops) 30K students. Total population of Tucson = 487,000. According to the Census, 70% are white (Hispanics are included here, but separately indicated at 36% of the population which would be mostly part of the "white" group). So, figure at most 34% of Tucson's population is White. That comes out to 165,560. So, it's not a "huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge portion of the white population of Tucson" as you suggest, but perhaps only 18% of the white population. Visit Tucson (not necessarily aimed at you, Node) - there are quite a lot of white people here who are not affiliated with the University. Certainly, there are a lot of hispanic individuals as well as indigenous persons, but you need to re-evaluate your claims there.

18% is an extremely huge portion of the white population of Tucson. The same cannot be said for Phoenix, nor most other Arizona cities, with the definite exception of Flagstaff and the possible exception of Tempe.

• Secondly, the percentage of students from Phoenix is not as cut-and-dry as you estimate. 46.3% of students at the UofA are originally from Phoenix (Maricopa County, specifically) I can't make any predictions about where they move upon graduation (Tucson has many engineering jobs, as many business opportunities as other similarly-sized cities, etc), but I think it would take some sort of proof for me to believe that most of this minority of UofA students move back to Phoenix. For comparison, 39% of students are originally from Pima County (and clearly 53.7% are from AZ outside Maricopa County).

46.3% may be a minority, but most Phoenicians return to Phoenix (or leave for LA or San Diego) after they graduate, and even a good deal of people born and raised in Tucson leave for Phoenix. To be fair, there are quite a few Phoenicians who stay, but they are a tiny minority. The 53.7% of course also includes natives, but if you subtract Pima County natives you end up with only 14.7%, most of whom are from Flagstaff, Yuma, Casa Grande, etc. and are still likely to end up in Phoenix. The rest of the students are obviously from out-of-state, and I'm not sure about the trends there - for example, do you plan to stay in Tucson or even Arizona, or will you be returning to NM or leaving for somewhere else entirely?

• I'm not contesting these points to argue that the O'odham population isn't static - I have no information one way or another. I know that in many parts of the USA, native americans are increasingly moving from traditional settlement areas/reservations to other cities and states. I think we'd need some sort of demographic information on the O'odham nation for any inclusion of the stabilitiy of the O'odham population.

Actually, that wouldn't work well because population statistics for the Nation include registered members living in Tucson, Phoenix, even LA or Tokyo. Just as many registered Navajos live in Flagstaff, and many registered W. Apaches live in Globe/Miami, a great portion of TO have opted for the urban life in Phoenix and especially Tucson, and the flow is mostly out of the reservation rather than the other way.

• The Hohokam linkage to the O'odham is far from certain, archaeologically. I understand that it's part of O'odham oral tradition, but that doesn't really mean a LOT in terms of archaeological linkage other than give researchers a place to start looking. So, don't take as fact that the O'odham have been here for thousands of years - the Hohokam were here long ago, but there's no direct, physical evidence (I know of or that my archaology prof knew of) linking the O'odham directly with the Hohokam.

Oral tradition means a great deal, especially in the case of the O'odham. I'm sure you're familiar with the "man-in-the-maze"? There is a real maze with that pattern, built of (I believe) stone, although access is restricted to Native Americans only (so it may not actually exist, although I have talked to people I trust who claim to have visited before). Akimel O'odham (Pima) also have lengthy legends involving "Vav Kivalik", a peak which until recently only a small minority had actually seen, which they share with the Tohono O'odham who actually live in its shadow. The archaeological record shows that the Hohokam vanished into thin air, which obviously isn't possible. In the past, some suggested that they all died, but it is much more likely that their culture simply declined in the face of Apache and even Aztec raids (the Apache are relative newcomers, and their estimated date of arrival on the border of modern O'odham lands is the same as the date postulated for the end of the Hohokam culture), and their material culture was nearly identical to modern O'odham material culture. There is also no evidence of a large-scale battle and displacement (thus the possibility of the modern O'odham having attacked and displaced the Hohokam is extremely slim). In addition, the linguistic evidence suggests that O'odham split from related languages just 50 or 100 years before the beginning of the Hohokam culture. The crops the Hohokam farmed are nearly identical to those used by modern O'odham subsistence farmers (traditional farming is obviously almost completely gone nowadays, but 50 years ago it was common and 25 years ago it wasn't rare, but it certainly still exists and is undergoing a revival). All evidence suggests that the modern O'odham have lived there since the end of the Cochise period.

• Finally, I'll agree wholeheartedly that the White inhabitants of Tucson are quite recent arrivals. It's only been since the Spanish came that any White person lived in the Tucson region. That's been quite a few years, too, however. I'll admit that many White residents are more recent arrivals from the Mid-west, though.

And also, while there certainly were plenty of white people in Tucson 50 and 100 years ago, the ratio of O'odham to whites and hispanics was very different.

• In any event, things aren't as cut-and-dry for your story as they'd need to be for a simple blanket statement. I don't think such a statement would actually be apropriate in the context of the article on Tucson unless we were telling it on an article about the history of Tucson or the O'odham.

--ABQCat 03:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier I don't think any of it should go in the article, but deserves noting on the talkpage. This was just a more public response to a note JamesMLane left on my talkpage suggesting that the O'odham may not have been in the area long, and my perception that many people based their judgement of the issue partially on the situation in their home state - for example, in Pennsylvania, Arminius' home state, there are 15000 Native Americans out of a population of 12,365,455, and only under 500 of those speak a Native American language, whereas in Arizona, there are 286,680 Native Americans out of a population of 5,130,632, and an estimated 75- to 80% of them speak an ancestral language (the percentage is slightly higher among Navajo and O'odham). My point being, they judge it as a vote on whether or not "Indian names" (a term used by Cyrius on IRC) should be included or not in general, rather than a vote on whether or not the O'odham name for Tucson is relevant enough, with a 7% speaker population in the area, to be included in parenthesis immediately after the English name, although to be sure some people made clear that they didn't agree with parenthetical inclusion of /any/ names. --Node 05:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Was Paul McCartney (The Beatles) really from Tucson, Arizona. I believe he was from Liverpool, UK...