text:
Talk:Tucson, Arizona/Archive 3

Launching the Tucson Wiki
I just launched the Tucson Wiki. I invite interested contributors. Please join me in building a helpful knowledge base of Tucson information. --Kimbayne 13:20 PM, July 18, 2005 (MST) --kris 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Start contributing, you people! Only one person has done anything so far! 134.114.59.41 07:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I now have a Tucson Wiki going that is actually maintained and updated on a daily basis. At the date of this writing there are over 200 pages, contributed by only three people so far, would be great if others were interested in adding content. The wiki is growing nicely and it is really starting to fill with content. --RBChallenger 10:19 PM MST, January 11, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Prepping for the RfC/vote
I have now put in a request to unprotect the page, in preparation for the RfC/vote beginning later today. If once it gets unprotected you guys want to throw your version up on the article page to show the world how it would look, that's fine by me. Also, I am preparing a short commentary on my proposed version, so I suggest you guys prepare one on yours also. --Gary D 20:04, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection
I've unprotected. Good luck with the vote. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 20:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

December 16-23, 2004 vote
A vote was held between two proposed versions, given below. The voting period was from 00:01 UTC on Thursday, December 16 to 00:01 UTC on Thursday, December 23. Thank you to everyone who participated.

Dispute context
The dispute started when an editor placed the Tohono O'odham name for Tucson in the first sentence of the article, a move opposed by several other editors. The history of the dispute is found on this page above. The difference between the two versions below is not intended to be inclusion/exclusion, but rather placement of the Tohono O'odham name and wording regarding it: Version 1 places it closer to the top, and includes a first-sentence parenthetical translation, and explains the name origin in more detail further down, while Version 2 places it further down in the article, and explains the name origin but does not give a first-sentence parenthetical translation.

Commentary by Version 1 proponent(s):
Given that Tucson is a city with perhaps a 7% Tohono O'odham-speaking population including the metropolitan area and outlying rural areas, the Tohono O'odham name is most definitely worthy of "top billing" in the introductory, definitional section above the subheaded sections and table of contents because in addition to historical and cultural significance, it is a modern reality. Similarly, the O'odham name for Tucson deserves mention, and is included in the top paragraph in a historical context explaining the etymology English name, but is also of sufficient encyclopedic significance to justify inclusion in the introductory sentence with a translation which will be informative and relevant to most Wikipedia readers. --Node 03:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Version 1 text:
Tucson (Tohono O'odham: Cuk Ṣon) is a city located in 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. Joined by I-10, Phoenix and Tucson are the endpoints of a 100-mile corridor of increasingly suburbanized areas. Tucson is the county seat of Pima County6.

=== History ==

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, and the Yaqui, most of whom arrived in the late 1800s fleeing persecution in Mexico. (### O'odham currently live in the city as well as in the nearby San Xavier reservation and Tohono O'odham Nation. 6800 Yaqui currently live in the city, largely in Old Pascua and Barrio Libre, and on the nearby Pascua Yaqui reservation and in Yoem Pueblo in Marana.) In 1692, Jesuit missionary Eusebio Francisco Kino visited the area, which the O'odham called "Cuk Ṣon", building the Mission San Xavier del Bac in 1700. The Spanish established a presidio (fort) in 1776 and the town came to be called "Tucson."

=== Etymology of "Tucson" ===

The name, (pronounced /tusʊn/), comes, via Spanish, from the O'odham name for the city which means "Black Foothills," a reference to the Baboquivari mountains to the west of Tucson. One of the more notable of these foothills is Sentinel Peak (Arizona), 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".

[rest of article unchanged]

(Note: the text of Version 1 given here has changed since the voting began.)

Version 1 support (sign here):

 * 1)  BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 01:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Node 01:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) It's not out of line to include information like this in the opening sentence. Cf. Izmir, which—despite the fact that, after the massacres following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there is virtually no Greek population there—notes the original Greek name (the origin of the Turkish name) parenthetically in the first sentence.  This is not the same as mentioning that Greek immigrants call NYC Nea Yorki at the start of the article; it is mentioning the original name of a place which was formerly part of a different country.  (Cf. also Gdańsk, which gives three other languages parenthetically in this place). For articles on cities which have changed hands in history, this is quite common practice in Wikipedia. If the Spanish form of the name differs orthographically (I'm not sure if it does; my Spanish is, regrettably, extremely deficient) it would be appropriate to give it here, too, as the city was a very important part of New Spain for centuries. —Tkinias 07:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The first line should probably give both the O'odham and the English pronunciation; again, see Gdańsk for an example. —Tkinias 08:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) --Manchineel 15:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) . The origin of the word Tucson deserves to be near the top. I vote for version 1.
 * 2) Jallan 20:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC). I don't think it matters too much where the O'odham name appears, but it makes sense to me to place it both prominently and casually, without fuss, where it appears in Version 1. I find Gary D.'s arguments presumptious about what other people might be interested in and to be overly fixated on dominance, though apparently not when it has to do with the metric system. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive11. Not everyone buys into an Anglo-American dominated world, not even in the U.S. (where non-English speakers thrive to the horror of English-firsters), and reminders of multi-culturalism and differences under the surface are a good thing in themselves, so I believe. After all, inhabitants of the only country attempting to stick mainly to old imperial units are less than 5% of world population, less than modern O'odham speakers in Tucson. Jallan 20:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) gK [[User talk:GK|¿?]] 11:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is clearly the most accurate description of the derivation of the name, and should be clearly stated at the beginning of the article. The English pronunciation should also be included at the top of the article as well. Accuracy should be the only criteria that needs to be used for this part of an encyclopedia entry. Everything else is just obfuscation.
 * 4) Ifoolyou 02:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) See Helsinki, where it even gives the Northern Sami name. I would add the quail name for Tucson, but alas unicode doesn't support quail writing.
 * 5) Adam Bishop 21:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Hi. I guess the voting is over? I like to see different languages' names of places.  I like to think that knowing the name in different languages makes the place seem "deeper".  Sometimes names of places are very important. I havent read all of the comments here (and probably wont), so I may be uninformed.  The objection is that the names in other languages are not important enough for top billing?  Distracting?  I think that all languages and people are very important and worthy of consideration. I dont understand why English is more important.  I speculate that giving the non-English names top billing will help to invoke pride among the other language speakers (and thus encourage language survival).  Anything counteracting the years of negative thoughts and actions I view as a welcomed addition.  This way feels not as ethnocentric. Peace. - Ish ishwar 05:54, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

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)
 * 1) Contains info I wanted included, presented in a clear manner.  --ABQCat 00:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Agree with Rd232 Arminius 06:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) A. D. Hair 06:11, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) As Rd232.   — Dan | Talk 20:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) →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. gK [[User talk: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)

 * The ṣ as far as linguistics goes is, in my experience, more of a diacritical tool for lossless transliteration from one script to another. For example, it can both represent the hard sibillant 's' (ص) in Arabic, as well as the retroflex ʂ in Sanskrit (ष), etc. In this situation, sh, š, or ś would work just as well. Since, to the best of my incredibly limited knowledge on regional indigenous languages (I'm more likely to recognize a Salish word!) the Navajo use a variant of the Roman alphabet I do not see this as necessary.  Khiradtalk 11:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it seems to be correct O'odham orthography from the O'odham language article Khirad 13:39, 12 November 2005 (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)

 * Silly hairsplitting from people who really should pull themselves away from wikimania once in a while and visit the real world. The simplest construct is: of first importance is to remember that the language of the wiki tells us the "real" name (e.g., in a German wiki a city is listed as Grosswedein, and in a Hungarian wiki the same city is Úngvár, even though it is in present-day Ukraine); of second importance is what the inhabitants call it as when they speak their own version of the wiki language; of third importance is the place name in other indigenous languages; and then other versions. BTW, User:Node ue has been listing Piman and "Papago" names for places that have sizeable long-settled (pre-historical) populations of other indigenous groups (e.g., Maracopas, Yaquis, and Apaches), sometimes in greater numbers than the O'odham peoples. Why doesn't he list the other names, too? Or this a reductio ad absurbum? (Or is he just an O'odhamophile? Mulţumesc!)

 * 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...

 * Of course, but he maintains a residence in Tucson. It is a list of residents, not natives.  — Pekinensis 22:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * AFAIK he maintained, past tense, a residence in Tucson. When Linda McCartney died, he sold his residence here in Tucson. (Somewhere around the Red Rock region, I believe).

Seasons
I think most locals would argue that fall and (especially) spring are distinct seasons here; I've taken a stab at editing to reflect this, though others may want to refine it.

Also, the city gets a significant portion of its precipitation in winter, so I edited the paragraph that claimed the season was characterized by little rainfall. Janni 20:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me I've heard many times over the last twenty years that the expression "monsoon season" is redundant, since monsoon essentially means "rainy season, characterized by such and such a dewpoint and weather pattern." The word monsoon should stand alone. See, for eample, the NOAA / NWS Monsoon Tracker page, which says "The 2006 Monsoon began on June 28th." Yet the article consistently paired these two words (until I changed it just now). Some explanation is needed for people unfamiliar with the term, but I really think it should be used correctly here. Am I all wet on this? ;) Karen | Talk | contribs 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Source for "Tucson is at the longest continuously inhabited location in the United States."
I'd like to see the source for this statement. I looked around on google for a bit, but couldn't find any additional information. Does the person who added this want to source the material? Thanks! --Quasipalm 13:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Though I didn't add the piece, I found the following in under five minutes on my personal book shelf in a volume titled City Smart: Tucson, a travel guide published by Avalon Travel (ISBN 1-56261-368-5)-

 * "Tucson's earliest village people farmed corn (sic), used tobacco and shot one another in the back as early as 760 BC These would remain common local pursuits for the next 2,500 years, through successive waves of new settlers. The earliest Tucsonans, archaeologists have recently learned, occupied several sites along the Santa Cruz River, which flowed during most of the year until the end of the nineteenth century. One settlement, now designated Santa Cruz Bend, thrived between the eighth and third centuries B.C.; it contained at least 176 pit dwellings, storehouses and communal structures."

 * For a more scholarly reference check on-line at Hohokam Indians of the Tucson Basin: "At about AD 200, a few Hohokam families apparently moved to the Tucson Basin and built their homes along the Santa Cruz and Rillito rivers. These early villagers introduced a new lifeway into the area."

 * The difference between the two being that 760 B.C would mark the time the area saw the first semi-nomadic, part time residents while the 200 B.C date would mark the first permanent, year-round dwellings.

 * In another on-line reference from The Logan Museum at Beloit University the Hohokam were current from about AD 500 to 1450.

 * In another reference, according to The City of Tucson, “Tucson has been continuously settled for over 12,000 years.” That would put the starting gun around 10000 BC!

 * It seems there may be some controversy over what constitutes both "continuous" and “settlement” but in any case, take your pick of the time frame. They’re all about as old as it gets on the North American continent.Joekoz451 16:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)joekoz451

 * I have heard it stated for years that Tucson is the oldest city/inhabited place in North America. I'm not sure where the information originally came from but now there is some archaeological digging going on in downtown Tucson and the other day I visited there and the first thing the archaeologist told us was that they now have proof of people living there since 1000 BC (I guess that making it the oldest inhabited city in the western hemisphere - Jericho being the oldest in the eastern side and the oldest in the world). Just my two cents. 67.142.130.23 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC) JCP

I think the funcitonal phrase is "CONTINUOUSLY inhabited". Joekoz451 19:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Flag & Seal
The FOTW site has a better seal, and a flag. As they were submitted by a local official I think they are usable here, if not under the usual rules governing flags and seals. I am new to the area, but I believe these are accurate. Khiradtalk 11:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe that the current seal shown on the page (This one) is actually the outdated version. Taking a quote from that same page you linked:

 * "'By using our historic City seal as the foundation, we have standardized its color scheme and added the city's founding date to present our unique history and distinguish us from other Arizona cities.'"

 * This, as well as searching the City Website and looking at the seal's presence use on various PDF files, leads me to believe that the actual, current City of Tucson seal is the one that was displayed on this article previously (e.g., this one).

 * If anyone disagrees with me, let me know here. Otherwise I will change the seal in the infobox. If the concensus is that the seal currently displayed should stay, I'll at least upload a version whose color palette isn't so limited and looks so horrible shrunk down.

 * Ixnayonthetimmay 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Government
I added a section on Tucson's city government a few days ago (back before I was registered). It just gives the rudiments and a little blurb on the campaign finance system. Please add more detail as you see necessary: past mayors, changes in the structure of the government, etc.--LyptonVillage 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

pictures
i think Tucson should have more pictures. i dont know why, but i like articles with a lot of pictures in them.

Speedway - ugliest street?
In light of recent comments in the changes of this page, I felt it important to at least back up the comment about Speedway Boulevard having been named the ugliest street in America. this among other links on the Internet give independent verification that, if not true, this fact is at least believed by others independent of the statement on wikipedia. I know that this comment was widely circulated amongst freshmen in the dorms on the UofA campus in 1999, quite before Wikipedia would have been circulating the "fact". I do, however, feel we're lacking without proper citation of the article in Life magazine. Apparently the issue was from 1970 if we're to believe the Internet citations, and I would be very interested to see if anyone can find some substantiation. --ABQCat 00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I lived there in the 1970s, and that sentiment (how ugly Speedway was) was rampant among Tucsonans. (Possibly the only rival to Speedway was the old "Miracle Mile".) "Original research", maybe, but believe me, you're on solid ground supporting that assertion, even absent that issue of Life. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Miracle mile is 'interesting ugly'; Speedway is 'boring ugly' ike9898 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I guess they're both now "retro" (esp. Miracle Mile). (Or has MM been "redeveloped"?) It's been [cough] a few years since I lived there. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Population density
The population density figures seem to be incorrect in this article. It claims the population per sq. mile is a lower figure than the population per square km. How do you fit fewer people in a square mile than you do in a square km if the figures are supposed to be equivalent? Note: a sq. mile is over 2.5 times the size of a km². --dm (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I answered my own question. According to 2000 U.S. Census, units were reversed. It should be 2500.1 people per sq. mile. It's now fixed. --dm (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Day of the Dead Celebration?
Is this really one of the "largest holidays celebrated" in Tucson? I've lived in Tucson for almost 20 years and I've never heard of any significant recognition given to this event. Where exactly do these "thousands" of people gather and where do they go?

 * Perhaps it's invisibility has something to do with the fact that Hispanic families, primarily Mexican, engage in a relatively private, family celebration of the Day of the Dead. They bring food and drink to the grave sites of deceased relatives and essentailly picnic with the dead as part of their extended families. {That private celebration is not the one being referred to, the celebration being referred to is the super-homogenized new one that doesn't even necessarily fall on November 1 or 2.}

 * Just because a celebration doesn't involve major production parades doesn't mean the celebration is not a large celebration. In this case, it's a large celebration that manifests itself on a private, family level rather than a big public display with parades down "Main Street". If one only counts the showiness of it, your point is well taken. However, I suspect if one considers the number of people involved (and Tucson has a significant population with a Mexican heritage) perhaps it might be a reason to re-calculate it's significance.

 * With the exception of a few public aspects of the celebration of the Day of the Dead in Tucson, I can see how the celebration might be virtually invisible to the average Anglo who's attention is drawn elsewhere. However, just because one does not see it, does not mean it's not there. The significant recognition of the celebration is primarily among those of the community that celebrates it. If you're not a member of that community, you might miss it altogether. --Joekoz451 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I would say The day of the dead is a popular celebration, not one of the largest holidays celebrated.
 * has something to do with the fact that Hispanic families, primarily Mexican, engage in a relatively private, family celebration of the Day of the Dead.,
 * You're right in stating it's a popular hispanic holiday that has been incorpurated in Tucson, however thats exactly the reason it should not be singled out as one of the largest holidays celebrated, because not everyone is hispanic, and it's not an official American holiday. It is however original to Tucson and should be mentioned as a holiday celebrated, so perhaps some re-wording is in order. On a side note: I feel there is no racism in his question, drawing the race card here is a bit ridiculous Somerset219 02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I would certainly agree that "drawing a race card" is ridiculous but I'm not sure where your coming from when you mention it. Tucson is multi cultural and it's not uncommon for people of one culture to miss things that are happening in other cultures. In this case, non-hispanics who don't observe the Day of the Dead celebration are pretty much oblivious to it. I believe that's a valid observation and not "drawing a race card".

 * How many non-Chinese are tuned into Chinese New Year? Would it be racist to say that Hispanics are pretty oblivious to that celebration?

 * Or, perhaps the objection is to the term "Anglo", a term used by many Central and South Americans when refering to North Americans of other than Spanish heritage. I happen to be of Polish heritage ... however, being an English speaker, I feel the term "Anglo" is a relatively accurate assessment and, in the Southwest particularly, an appropriate discriptor (though not the only one). "Anglo" certainly doesn't bother me as much as "Gringo" might. A peek at the etymology of both terms would probably give a clue as to why that might be and to why the term "Gringo" might be a either a racial or cultural slur while "Anglo" proabably isn't.

 * That aside, I think you're probably correct and the article might be better served if it were edited to read, "The Day of the Dead is a popular celebration" rather than characterizing it as one of the biggest. The statistics to support the latter proposition would probably hard to come by given the relatively non-public nature of the celebration. --Joekoz451 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason i felt you were drawing the race card was because of the lack of knowlegde you have about the race of the person who identified the issue. Another reason would be that I celebrate The Day of the Dead, along with other people whom are from other cultures other than hispanic. Granted you didn't use racially slanderous language to identify with the person making the inquiry, however you brought up that A: Only Mexicans care about it. B: They celebrate in private. C: the person asking if he/she could edit "the largest holiday celebrated" is white.

''I would certainly agree that "drawing a race card" is ridiculous but I'm not sure where your coming from when you mention it. Tucson is multi cultural and it's not uncommon for people of one culture to miss things that are happening in other cultures. In this case, non-hispanics who don't observe the Day of the Dead celebration are pretty much oblivious to it. I believe that's a valid observation and not "drawing a race card".

Dawing a race card is bringing up a racial observation based a non-racial question. It may be a valid observation, but one that didn't have anything to do with the question.

anyways this is turning into a bitchfest, so lets just let bygones be bygones. Somerset219 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how you got what you got from what I wrote on my Discussion page (without the ad hominum attacks and insinuations). It would spaak far better of you than the tactic of making your points in public and then unilaterally declaring the discussion closed because it's become a "bitchfest". I'll copy my original comments there and we can take this up in private. --Joekoz451 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the Day of the Dead celebration being a big deal is because the person who posted the original article thought so. It's simply another case of non-NPOV.

bad section
"Tucson is also known for its ecelectic underground arts scene localized in the Historic Warehouse Arts District. Performance troupes such as the pyrotechnic theater company, Flam Chen, puppet circus Tucson Puppet Works, the kinectic-sculpturist Mat Bevel, and the gender bending Dragstar Cabaret, are known for their alternative and otherwise, off-kilter shows."

 * WP:NOT
 * WP:NOT
 * External links
 * Notability (music)
 * Verifiability, Tucson is also known for its ecelectic underground arts scene localized in the Historic Warehouse Arts District., ok... where does it say that? who says that? Information must be verifiable.
 * Avoid weasel words
 * Avoid peacock terms

-- Ned Scott 22:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I was going to do a point-by-point refutation of your objections—OK, I will, briefly, in order:

 * "Not an indiscriminate collection of information"; OK, how is this paragraph "indiscriminate" information? Doesn't appear so to me; in any case, this can be fixed by editing, not outright deletion.
 * "Not a mirror or repository of links", etc. OK; take out the goddamn links. Is that so hard?
 * "External links"; I have no idea what you're objecting to here, but again, this can be fixed by editing, not outright deletion.
 * "Notability (music)"; I have no idea why you think this applies, as this policy refers to the qualification for inclusion as articles in Wikipedia, not as performers mentioned in a description of a cultural arts district. Seems perfectly OK to me.
 * "Verifiability": Seems you don't know how to use a search engine, or perhaps didn't take the time to read the many articles that pertain to this subject which confirm the gist of the statement.
 * "Weasel words"; I don't see any of these in the statement, but if you do, this can be fixed by editing, not outright deletion.
 * "Peacock words"; see above.
 * But in any case, you, as well as all the other editors of this section, have totally missed the forest for the trees. If you do a search (I used "tucson historic warehouse district"), you'll find many articles that give the recent history of this district. The most "notable" fact of all is that the district and the warehouses still even exist at all! This is because the state and the city had plans to ram a freeway through the neighborhood, requiring the demolition of all the old warehouses referred to here. Not to mention the fact that most of these warehouses (20 of them) are owned by the state of Arizona because of the planned freeway. This certainly needs to be included in any description of this area, and I hope someone who knows something about it gets to work on it soon. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, in a nutshell, it just seemed like a bunch of non-notable people trying to get links to their web sites via the article. I could be wrong, but the article doesn't give any indication on their notability or anything. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Wikipedia articles would evolve a lot slower if editors had to argue every time they wanted to remove information that has no source.

 * You're totally right, all this can be fixed by editing. It could turn out that these people really are notable in this context. However, on Wikipedia it's not prove wrong, it's prove right.  I saw something that, 1, sounded fishy, and 2, had nothing to back up or even say why these people were important.  If you found sources so easily on Google, then I invite you to add them.  I'm not against the text for any personal reason.  WP:CITE says "Providing sources for edits is mandated by No original research and Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."

 * If you wish to improve the section, then go for it. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That darn "Zip code stats" link
Okay, someone just added this link again, the version that searches for Tucson under Maricopa County instead of Pima. This has already been removed a few times, both as Maricopa and as Pima. I personally think the Pima version is a useful page, but others strongly disagree, for reasons that elude me. In any case, I reverted, on the grounds that even if the site is worthwhile the Maricopa link is not. Should we discuss this? Karen | Talk | contribs 07:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I can think of a couple of good reasons to jettison this: first of all, the site is beta (even says so right on the page), and besides, check out the owner's page. Apart from the glaring misspellings, this looks like the kind of gold-digging, money-grubbing outfit that Fucked Company would have a field day with. In any case, if it's not either 1) an official gov't agency or 2) a non-profit with a good reputation, I'd say leave it out. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Makes sense to me. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh nice you ILike2BeAnonymous (Who'zzza grumppy bear!!!)...how about if you find a misspelling on my personal consulting site, you just be a nice guy and email to let me know about it...instead of blurting boring assumptive opinions. I would do that for you! And no I am not offended...nice try though!  In truth, I am just way to busy with meaningful projects to be vain and spend a lot of time on my own site...and honestly, I don't think Fucked Company would give a hoot about some guys personal consulting website.  BTW where is your site?Vanvleit | Talk 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * So, is it safe to say that that's your site, and that you put it in here for promotional purposes? If so, then I should say "nice try" right back at ya.
 * So far as finding misspellings on your site goes, no, that's not the way it works: you would pay me to find them; it's a function called "copy editing" that I sometimes make my living at. And since you asked, I have no need of a site of my own, thank you very much. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * PAY YOU?!?!...who is "gold-digging" and "money-grubbing" now!?!? It is nice to know you can "sometimes" get work...I'd hate to think of you hitting the streets.  And as for my hiring of any copy editors, I would only hire one that could show at least remedial knowledge of HTML (perhaps buy putting up just a little web site!!!)...I'm also not in the market for one right now...though I am looking for a technical writer with provisional patent experience (if you know one).
 * And, YES, that (ZipCodeStats) site is just one of my many many project, but this one is a special...it's a "FREE RESOURCE"...much like the Wikipedia! In fact, you can't even become a member of it...no email addresses are gathered, no user accounts created, and no credit cards required.  Just a good old fashion info site...the kind grandma use to make.  And if by "promotional purposes" you mean that I think that Wikiopedians and the people that use the Wikiopedia (such as myself) might find it a helpful resource...then sure...in the same vain as the US Census Bureau, the BEA, the MIT Media Lab ZIP Code distribution map, ZIP Code GeoCoding, etc. And be rest assured, I don't NEED the Wikiopedia to increase awareness of it.  People seem find it usefull, so it is being picked up and trafficed just fine on its own. Vanvleit | Talk 23:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The WikiProject Spam talk page has some more discussion. Wmahan. 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The oldest bar in Tucson
What is the name of that bar that is supposed to be the oldest in Tucson. You'll see shirts from there around town and they have a buffalo head (wearing sunglasses) on them. I remember that they have a pot of perpetual stew that apparently has been there for a long time. ike9898 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Shanty at the end of 4th avenue claims to have the longest continually held liquor license in the state of AZ (since the 1940s I believe -- or so the sign on their wall claims). The place with the buffalo is called Bison Witches (a couple blocks up the street), and is only ~10 years old, I think. --kris 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

what is the phonetic origen of
this word, tuscon? it seems strangely un-english and magically aztec. anyone know anything pertaining to this? k zz* 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph of the article itself explains this. It's based on a Spanish version of a word in the native O'Odham language. Karen | Talk | contribs 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the title not "Tucson, Arizona"?
Is there a specific reason that the title of this article is simply "Tucson" rather than "Tucson, Arizona" like nearly every other city article on Wikipedia? According to WP:NC:CITY, the "City, State" style is the preferred and most commonly used format. Should this be changed? --Nebular110 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * If I recall correctly, it used to be. The only reason I can see for it not to be listed as such is because of Tucson's status as an iconic city (people looking up Tucson are more likely looking for the one in Arizona rather than any other). I believe you are right, however, so feel free to change it to conform with 99% of the other Wiki articles on cities. Treima 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, sort of that. Pretty much, Tucson, AZ is the most common Tucson, and no other Tucson article exists, and it's unlikely to be confused with any other Tucson named cities. There is actually a lot of debate (almost all the time, it seems) on how to exactly title such articles, but I figured this was an easy situation where there would be no case of confusion and so on. I don't feel strongly about it, so if someone moves it back I won't mind much. The general idea of all Wikipedia articles is to use the most common and simple / straight forward name, but some other concerns and conditions may or may not apply. Basically, it goes well with either name. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This article has been moved back to Tucson, Arizona, which is the established convention for U.S. city articles. The city is not large enough to have just city name alone, as New York City is. Please do not move this article unless and until a different convention is established through the normal debate channels. Dr. Cash 04:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look into that, as I haven't been fully following the discussion on that. However, do not do cut-and-paste page moves. See Help:Moving a page. When you do this you break the edit history of the article. You're supposed to just use the "move" tab, but ironically that won't work anymore because of the cut-and-paste move making a new edit history. To move the article now you will have to Requested moves. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I keep getting reverted when I move this article back to Tucson, Arizona, which is the current, accepted naming convention for U.S. city articles and no exception has been granted for this city. Could an administrator please move this back. This city is not acceptable in its current location. Dr. Cash 04:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I noted before, these conventions are in debate right now. Not only that, but there is no direct population mark for when a city can use it's name alone. The city of Tucson is the most common use of the word "Tucson", and is the second largest city in the state of Arizona. There is little to no chance for confusion here with another town name. This is in a grey area of the convention, where there is not a clear distinction. I see no reason to move this article back to Tucson, Arizona. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Article moved back to Tucson, Arizona
I moved it back. Let's not do that again, ok? WP:RM is for controversial moves and clearly this would be extremely controversial. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the page on November 15th, after coming to the conclusion that the town makes a reasonable claim to "Tucson" and is of a fair size and notability. When people noticed this page move (in the above section) I noted that it would probably work with either name, but no one moved it back. The whole thing seemed very uncontroversial until just now. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay but, in the future, let's recognize that any U.S. city article move is going to be considered controversial. There are 80 zillion lines of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to back me up on that.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why anyone was invited to revert the page move. That's all Dr Cash had to do, and there would have been no issue. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I did, but apparently I didn't move it back correctly, since I wasn't getting all the page history copied correctly on this. Thanks for correcting me! I am aware of a significant amount of debate on this topic, but to date, there has been no consensus reached on changing the current naming convention, so there's no reason to do any mass moves of cities or anything else. If ANY city in Arizona is noteworthy of being moved, it would be Phoenix, but there are some other disambiguation issues involved with that name, so that city will probably remain, regardless of the naming convention. Dr. Cash 05:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All of that discussion means moving any of the U.S. city articles would be controversial. Controversial moves are supposed to go through WP:RM.  That means Tucson or Phoenix or Schenectady, New York - whatever.  If that wasn't clear before, fine - but let's not do it again.  —Wknight94 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Crime" section
I removed some nonsense from that section, including a statement that vaguely blamed South Tucson for the city's crime problems and another that said something lame like "the city is struggling with crime problems": what city isn't?

The problem with this section is that it is disembodied, with no context. How about something about Tucson's ranking (statewide & nationally) with regard to crime? Categories of crimes? Put it in perspective, please. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work!
Thanks for all the usefull information on Tucson - just one suggestion (and I don't have the time to do the research, sorry). The crime statistics stated would likely be more meaningful to the reader if the were contrasted, for instance, to Phoenix, AZ or Albuquerque or Las Cruces, NM and/or stated in terms of # per capita. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FelizAZ (talk • contribs) 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Population projection
I've removed the population projection of 610,000 for 2008. This information on the Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities website, has a population project of 553,150 for 2008 for Tucson. It also states that the current population estimate is 538,050. Seeing as how 2008 is only one year off, I don't think a 2008 population projection is really all that notable right now, anyways. It might be worth noting the projection for 2017 or 2027, but not in the opening paragraph, IMHO. Dr. Cash 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture section
ILike2BeAnonymous seems to want to dismantle this article's structure and make it much, much harder to read. While separating 'government', 'education', and 'transportation' into main sections is fine, I disagree with this user's dismantling of the 'culture' section. 'In popular culture' clearly falls under culture, and I moved it there because it seemed to fit, and I didn't want it to become a 'trivia' section (trivia sections are highly discouraged in articles). 'Parks and outdoor activities' falls under culture as cultural attractions. It's not notable enough to be its own main section, that's why it's under a subsection in culture. And this is something that I didn't put there and ILike2BeAnonymous just unanimously decided should be removed. 'Sports' also falls under the culture section as a 'cultural attraction'. But I guess ILike2BeAnonymous thinks he owns this article, so I guess he'll do what he wants,... Dr. Cash 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, just to disabuse you of that notion, no, I don't own it, wouldn't want to in any case.
 * But it's simply not correct to lump all that stuff under "culture". You see, in the real world—the one out there, not this wiki-world—certain words are generally taken to have certain meanings. "Culture" includes such things as I mentioned in one of my edit summaries: art, music, dance, theater, you know, stuff like that. To which could be added cuisine. But sports? I don't think so. Sports is what would be termed sui generis, so it should get its own section. Nothing hard to understand about that, and it certainly doesn't make the article "harder to read". What do others think? +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Some interesting points, but I still have to disagree with you regarding sports. Spectator sports are much the same as going to the theater or a concert (heck, concerts often occur at many of the same venues as sporting events. Things like the Superbowl and the NCAA Basketball tournament clearly have a huge cultural impact on modern society. Even the gladiator contests of ancient Rome were largely cultural events. Even participatory sports have a cultural aspect to them; just like you can participate by going to a ski resort or beach volleyball game, there are also participatory artistic venues, theater acts, etc. Dr. Cash 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I must say I agree with ILike2BeAnonymous. Sports are perhaps nominally a cultural attraction, but it's not a useful way to categorize them. If someone wants to look for the name of that baseball / basketball / softball team out of Tucson, it is highly likely the person will look under "sports," not cultural attraction. There's certainly more than enough organized sports activity in this city to warrant such a section. "In popular culture" sections appear to be acceptable (as trivia are not); and the Tucson one is reasonably well-defined IMO rather than a random dumping ground, so no worries there. The outdoor activities section is mostly to gather participatory sports (golf, biking, etc. being a substantial part of the attraction for tourists and snowbirds) with other outdoor recreation.  I can see that there might be a better way to organize that part, but shoving it into cultural attractions is, again, not helpful to people looking for such information.  It would instead have the effect of "burying the lead," to borrow a journalism term.  I suggest that we look at articles of comparable cities and see how they are organized, but in the meantime I'm going to revert.  Sorry.  Karen | Talk | contribs 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I am seeing a number of cities in which there is a Culture section, organized roughly as follows:

4 Culture * 4.1 Arts and entertainment * 4.2 Area attractions * 4.3 Sports * 4.4 Media

 * and so on. I do think, though, that Tucson's sports section, if it is to be a subheading, should be as high on the list as possible, simply because it is a major part of the culture of the area (in the sociological rather than artistic sense), and should not be buried under lots of less significant (or at any rate, less popular) subheadings.  (Bottom line, I didn't revert.) Karen | Talk | contribs 05:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm going to take sports out of this category and restore it to a top-level section. Doesn't make the article any harder to read, arguably makes it even easier to quickly locate the sports section if you're looking for it, and even if you disagree with this, I'm sure we can all live with this taxonony, 'k? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I disagree with you. Consensus was clearly not reached. I've reverted again. Dr. Cash 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that ILike2BeAnonymous is going to attempt to revert to his views regarding the 'sports' and 'parks' sections, regardless of whether consensus is established or not. I'd like to see what other users have to say about this. I still strongly feel that these two sections belong as subsections within the 'culture' section. 'Sports' are cultural attractions; people go to sporting events much the same way as others go to plays and musical events and such. Others participate in sports (like skiing & other water sports, similar to participating in annual cultural events and such. 'Parks and outdoor attractions' are also cultural attractions. These are often the venues that many cultural events take place in. Parks certainly aren't notable enough to have their own main section; it would fall under either culture, or maybe geography. But not a main section.

 * Well, old buddy, it appears that you don't have the "consensus" you thought you had in placing those items under the rubric of "Culture". Too bad. And by the way, just because some other city articles are organized that way here doesn't make it right. Besides, from what I've seen, more city articles are not organized that way than those that are. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Hey, folks, can we please chill out a bit here and find a better way to settle this than reverting back and forth? Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would feel so strongly about denying "Sports" a first-level section of its own and insisting, with lots of caps and exclamation points, that it must go as a subheading under Culture.  This may be appropriate for some cities, perhaps, but sports are a huge part of Tucson's notability, with several powerhouse U of A teams (basketball, softball, etc.), a championship AAA baseball team and Spring Training games.  The section about this needs to be readily findable by the average reader.  Now, if there is a stated policy someone can point to that outlines where sports must go in articles about major U.S. cites, then please point it out. If there isn't one, and if there are numerous examples of articles that do it one way, and a bunch more that do it the other way, then the next step is to either seek a clarification in the style guides, or work out a format you both can live with, or go to a dispute resolution process.  This constant reverting accomplishes nothing.  I frankly haven't been looking at most of the edits, except for IP ones in case of vandalism.  Let's settle this, please, calmly and without sniping if at all possible.  Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * In that spirit, I'm going to restore "Sports" to its former glory at the top TOC level. Easy to find, no confusion. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, 'Sports' can have its own section. I would have argued that it wasn't as big, mainly because there's no major league teams in Tucson. But given the baseball spring training thing, I can buy that it might be more notable. But please keep 'parks' under 'culture'. Dr. Cash 03:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tucson desert?
Why is the caption to the sunset picture say "Tucson desert", shouldn't it be Sonoran desert? --kris 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to my own comment, I changed the article. --kris 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this earlier, but you are correct. Likely the author just meant the desert around Tucson. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Name Revisited
The historian and writer of the Southwest USA, Edwin Corle, states the name of the city was Stjukshon which means "The Place Where the Water is Dark," or "Land of the Dark-water Spring." --Desertphile | September 6, 2007

Make this page nicer
We need to find a good picture of the Tucson skyline for the top of the page, and just more pictures overall, maybe some graphs and charts where needed? and more sections and just an overall makeover. if everyone pitches in we can make this rlly nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.131.145 (talk • contribs)

hey, i've added a few images i will add more soon. Itsandrewomg 01:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tucson, Arizona/Archive 3