Talk:Tucson, Arizona/Archive 1

Talk page: talk Archive 2: archive2

I grew up in Tucson and looking at the pronunciation it would seem that Tucson is pronounced "teeoosahn". The first vowel is not a dipthong. It should be pronounced "toosahn" or "tusQn" according to the pronunciation guide given. Anyone mind if I change it?

I don't know how natives pronounce it, but I always say "toosahn". I'm American, but an East-Coasterner.Tuf-Kat

Name origin

I readded the paragraph about the origin of the city's name. "The name Tucson comes from Chuk Shon, meaning "Spring at the base of the black mountain" in the Papago language of the Tohono O'odham native American tribe. The "black mountain" refers to the summit now known as Sentinel Peak, or "A Mountain", just to the west of Tucson's downtown area." node_ue reverted the article twice to delete it without discussing it on the talk page. Why delete good information? Isn't more, accurate information better than less? A brief discussion with node_ue on IRC led to several arguments against inclusion: A) this information should be in wiktionary, B) this falls in line with articles such as Warsaw and Lisbon, and C) advocation of a change in this text stems from intolerance and bigotry. To respond: A) again, I feel the more information in wikipedia, the better. Why make an article shorter when we have a paragraph of pertinent, accurate information to include? B) the names of Warsaw and Lisbon are given in the language that is used primarily by those cities. Warsaw and Lisbon are really the English versions of the city names. In the case of Tucson, the city name is Tucson -- that's not the English version of the name in a different language, it is the name. However, if there are many speakers of Papago in and around Tucson, I can understand including their version of its name in this article. C) discussion of what is basically style is not a representation of intolerance. I hope that before continued reversions, node_ue will discuss the issue here or post a brief message telling us where a discussion on his Native American placename project may be held. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 10:22, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I hope you'll recall that I told you on IRC that if you added that paragraph back, I wouldn't revert it. Your assertion of otherwise is paramount to calling me a liar, which could be construed as a personal attack, although that would be unfaithful to the AGF policy on my part.

A)Most Wikipedians, in addition to Wikipedia policy, disagree with you. Any information that would normally be included in a dictionary entry belongs in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. This includes etymology information, which you are unlikely to find at many Wikipedia articles.

B)Then what do you have to say for Ceuta, Melilla, Danzig/Gdansk, Helsinki...?

C)This is not any ordinary discussion of style.

--Node 23:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Name etymology is totally appropriate and even expected for encyclopedia articles - "Tucson" is unlikely to ever have a dictionary entry, and it would be perverse to make readers refer to a dictionary when they are right here looking at an article that purports to be "all about Tucson". The article history is very confusing, not clear who's doing what to who, but in any case my vote is to keep the etymology bits. Stan 13:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYI, by the time you posted this, there had already been a Wiktionary entry for Tucson for quite some time. Though it lacked a section about etymology, that could've easily been added, which I have just done.

--Node 23:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, Wiktionary continues to amaze. It's still true that etymology is common for encyclopedia articles - if they're missing from WP articles, it's more likely to be an oversight. See Mississippi River, Minnesota, and Idaho's amusing story, just to pick three with nonobvious names. The mention of etymology is conventional for US names, especially the Indian-derived ones - for some, like New York, the etymology neatly slips into the account of the history. Stan 04:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

We've had a further discussion on IRC regarding this, and I found that most people seemed to agree with my feelings on not including the parenthetical remark of (O'odham Chuk Shon). I'd like to repost some of my arguments here as to why we should A) not include the parenthetical remark, and B) include the etymology as a seperate paragraph. I feel that the format of City name (Language name: Other language name) is currently and should only be used when the official name of a place is in a language other than the language of the current wikipedia. This happens with the article on Munich. You'll notice that the en:WP article on Munich lists the German name of München. However, if you look at the de:WP article on de:München, you'll see that there is no listing of the English name being Munich. This is despite the fact that Munich has a sizable population of English speakers. (Lysine points out that Cardiff is another example, although one could argue that since Wales is bilingual, both Cardiff and Caerdydd are official names for the city and should be mentioned on each page...) Basically, I feel that placing this parenthetical statement implies that Chuk Shon is the official name for the city of Tucson. If this is actually the case, and the city is really officially known as Chuk Shon, I'd love to know that and it would be a good inclusion in an encyclopedia article on Tucson.

I really think that the name Chuk Shon is critical to include in the article as the origin of the current name, and including the paragraph in the opening section above the TOC seems a fine place to do that. Or maybe adding another section. It could also be mentioned, in fact, that the native people called the area Chuk Shon before Europeans created the city of Tucson there. I am just opposed to including it in the parenthetical version at the very beginning of the article. I think that node's project of including native language placenames for cities in this region is great, and I just disagree with how the placename should be presented.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 05:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that case, what about articles such as Sacaton, Arizona where the native name is not related to the etymology of the English name? Although Sacaton, Arizona is what the US Census Bureau calls the town (obviously they use English), and the municipality is officially called Sacaton internally, the official language is O'odham without a doubt.

--Node 08:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, you insist that it is not the "current" name. It is not the current English name, no, and it never was. But it *is* the current O'odham name. In addition, last time I checked, you don't live in the region. I don't know where you *do* live, but here not all Native Americans died hundreds of years ago. The majority of Native American languages in Arizona are alive and well (which is untrue of any other state in the country), being learned by children, and many of them have monolingual speakers. (Navajo, O'odham, Hopi, Havasupai, Walapai have monolingual speakers, others may as well; I'm not sure). Those languages in Arizona which are not doing well are mostly those spoken on the border with California. Living in the Phoenix Metro Area, I hear O'odham spoken around me fairly often (and occasionally Navajo). If I wish to learn it, I can get classes at Scottsdale Community College, or even U of A (in Tucson), which I actually plan to do this fall. Before the white man came to the Phoenix Metro Area, the only inhabitants of the land from just north of Phoenix to well across the Mexican border were O'odham (in some of their reservations near Phoenix, they share land with Maricopas who are originally from the Colorado River).

If you want, I can go to the trouble of asking Ofelia Zepeda who, unlike yourself (contrary to what you may want us to believe), is an expert in the O'odham language, what the current O'odham name for the city of Tucson is, though it's pretty much useless since I already know she will agree with me as even in the most recent addition of her textbook and other relevant books, Tucson is still referred to in O'odham as Chuk Shon.

In addition, although the official language of the city is not O'odham (in fact, I don't believe there *is* an official language), it *is* the official language of the nearby Tohono O'odham Nation (the second-largest reservation in the US, covering over 1 million acres) and is spoken by many O'odham living in Tucson, many of whom have lived there since well before my grandparents and my parents came to Arizona.

Interestingly, there is no O'odham name for Phoenix (to my knowledge) because the concept of Phoenix did not exist before the coming of white people (the villages in the area became Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Goodyear, etc, but the boundaries of those villages extended into what is now Phoenix; what was not part of the villages had a very small and not very permanent population). (Unless one uses the name of the district in which it is, which I think might be Wehn Chekshani, although that has very different geographical boundaries than does the Phoenix Metro Area)

If you want to go up to an O'odham and tell him or her "The proper name in the O'odham language for the second largest city in the state of Arizona is 'Tucson', not 'Chuk Shon' as experts and dictionaries have told you", be my guest. It is simply not true, and you CANNOT change the truth, no matter how hard you try.

In addition, there is the arguement that the current government of Tucson is not legitimate (that they are an occupying force) and that true authority rests with, say, the Tohono O'odham Nation, meaning the official language would be O'odham and the official name Chuk Shon. Of course, that's pretty rediculous, and even O'odhams do not challenge the authority of the municipal government... at least not often, since it's pretty futile. Even though it's rediculous, though, NPOV means that you must remain neutral and not endorse either camp. (please do not respond to my last argument as it's not really serious)

--Node 06:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The history lesson and context is interesting, but not really relevant. The bottom line - the version in place now (kmccoy's) actually gives much better treatment to the O'odham language than the previous one in parens, and it is indeed consistent with how other pages are done. I don't know why you are resisting it with such vigor. The folks in the IRC channel earlier gave their opinion and overwhelmingly supported this info being included, and not relegated to Wiktionary. Hopefully you'll agree from looking at the etymology of other city names here that it is appropriate to do so. Fuzheado | Talk 06:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not familiar with our argument. We are no longer arguing over whether or not to include that paragraph, but rather whether or not to include my remark in parens. I personally do not believe it gives much better treatment to the O'odham language... kmccoy continues to insist that the current O'odham name is *not* Chuk Shon, which is false. Next time you want to enter an argument, please make sure you're up to date.

--Node 07:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is clear I am talking about the parens. The parens should be taken out. That should be easy to understand. Fuzheado | Talk 08:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it is *not* clear. I'll quote you: "The folks in the IRC channel earlier gave their opinion and overwhelmingly supported this info being included, and not relegated to Wiktionary." Therefore, you were not talking about the removal of the parens. Or if you were, your wording was *very* unclear.

--Node 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kmccoy, placing an alternate language name in parenthesis at the beginning of the article leaves the wrongful impression that it's a common second name and should not be included. --Buster 08:32, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

It *is* a common first name. Chuk Shon is often used to refer to Tucson. Just not in English. While after explaining himself I no longer believe kmccoy to be a bigot or racist, you have shown time and again that you have no regard for those who were here first.

(Just to clarify, this is in response to node_ue, above.) Actually, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that this is the English wikipedia, and in other articles we only include a foreign language placename when the official name of the place is in that foreign language. (Munich, Warsaw, Lisbon.) The city of Tucson, Arizona wasn't incorporated as "Chuk Shon" and just translated into English. It was incorporated as Tucson, and this name was derived from "Chuk Shon". I don't doubt your claim that the current O'odham name for the city is "Chuk Shon", but I also don't think that it's particularly relevant to the article. The English name of "Munich" isn't included in de:München, despite the fact that the current English name for the city is Munich and a number of English speakers live there. The same goes for Warsaw and Lisbon, two cities which you have used as examples. (I'd love to see this standardized, but such is life on WP.) Again, I think you've got a good idea in your project, I'm just disagreeing with you on the way to include these names. I'm a little concerned with your implication that because you don't believe I live in the area I may not have input into this article on WP. I don't see how this is true, and I also think it's odd that you make such assumptions about where I live. In any case, it's freely mentioned on my user page that I live in Grand Rapids, Minnesota (Minnesota comes from the Dakota words meaning "sky-tinted water.") I wish that you would not take personal offense to my questioning of this inclusion -- it is not a desire to deny the existence of native languages or people, nor is it a desire to deny the origins of our placenames. It's simply a desire to make this (and other) wikipedia article more clear. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 08:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The difference between the English name of Munich and the O'odham name for Tucson is that the O'odham are the original inhabitants of Tucson, while English-speakers are not the original inhabitants of Munich. Those O'odham living in Tucson are not immigrants nor were their parents or grandparents immigrants, as would be the case with English speakers in Munich. Your mere comparison shows your general ignorance of the historical and current populace of Arizona.

In addition, Minnesota was, iirc, the name for a waterfall rather than what is now Minnesota. There is a difference there - Chuk Shon wasn't the word for Sentinel Mountain (though that is the black mountain to which Chuk refers), nor is it now. It's the word for Tucson. And only Tucson. Would you care to respond to my earlier question on this page regarding Sacaton?

Thank you very much, I appreciate your continued willingness to discuss matters in a civil manner.

--Node 11:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate that the original inhabitants of the Tucson area are O'odham. Again you have made an assumption and then used that as a basis for a personal attack -- using language like "Your mere comparison shows your general ignorance of the historical and current populace of Arizona" only serves to lower the level of civility in this discussion. I would say that the original name for the area is given proper consideration in the paragraph and the parenthetical remark is not only not needed, but also inappropriate in the English wikipedia. Perhaps there should be some discussion of an O'odham wikipedia if there is concern that modern day people who call the city "Chuk Shon" are not being fairly represented?

I'm not drawing a comparison between the name of Minnesota and the name of Tucson. My reason for mentioning it was that you said "I don't know where you *do* live, but here not all Native Americans died hundreds of years ago." Showing another assumption that isn't correct.

Looking at Sacaton, Arizona, I would say that if the city's name is officially Sacaton and not Ge'e Kih, then Ge'e Kih should not be in parenthesis after the city's name. If that name has significance to the city, it should be easy to find another spot in the article to connect it.

kmccoy (talk) 15:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then you are clearly at odds with Stan regarding Sacaton. Well over 10% of Sacaton uses the O'odham language, and it is the *first* official language (along with Maricopa) of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa reservation of which Sacaton is the capital.

Yes, let's watch it with the juvenile stuff. 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, or they are in an official language of the country, or if the name appears a lot in old literature. Antwerp (city) is an example of the first two, the much-fought-over Gdansk is an example of the last. (Ironically, the minorities rule would likely require the inclusion of Spanish names for Southwestern cities before any Indian names...) Stan 16:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed Stan, except that in the United States, most cities have identical Spanish and English names, especially in the Southwest where many English names are actually Spanish words (Los Angeles is only one example). And does oral literature apply? I ask this because prior to contact with Spaniards, the O'odham only knew writing from petroglyphs (which, although they can tell a story, will generally not tell you the historical name of a place; see for example the petroglyphs decorating the cover of A Pima Remembers by George Webb) and from their limited contact with Aztecs (whose writing is nowadays considered by some to not even be a writing system), and even after that there was no standard for writing the language in Roman letters until relatively recently.

I'm not sure if I could call it "discriminatory", but I don't think it's fair to treat the names a language gives to things as less-than-equal just because the language hasn't been a written language historically.

Nowadays, O'odham texts talking about Sacaton will say Ge'e Kih, about Scottsdale will say S-washai Weshoni, about Tucson Chuk Shon, about Mesa Mohmli, etc.

--Node 23:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spanish versions would only be an issue if they were different, which in the Southwest would probably not be often. I suggested written literature only as a practical matter - for instance, people who read ancient authors need to know that Durres is the same place as Epidamnos and Dyrrhachium. Purely oral literature is kind of irrelevant to a Wikipedia that consists of text and images (how does one look up a sound?), unless it's been written down, in which it becomes part of the written literature. I don't know anything about the O'odham, so won't try to judge this particular case, just trying to elucidate some principles that might help reduce the wrangling the next thousand times this issue will come up. Stan 04:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if, in the spirit of compromise, we could find a place to include names such as "Chuk Shon" in articles like this that is not in the position of the article which I have a problem with? Perhaps a line such as "Tucson is inhabited by a sizable number of speakers of the O'odham language. In that language, the city's name is 'Chuk Shon'" and place it near the top of the article? That way my concern with not confusing it with the official name of the city is addressed and your concern with including the name used by a number of local people is addressed. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find this to be completely unsatisfactory. I should like to remind you that my last revision to this article was itself a compromise - I was initally against the presence of that paragraph, which, in the spirit of compromise, I eventually agreed could stay if you let the parenthetical remark after the English name stay. However, it has become clear to me that no matter how much you pretend, you are not at all interested in compromise. I do not see your proposed solution as a compromise any more than I see the current revision as a compromise. The simple fact that Munich is in Germany and Tucson in the US should make it clear that the German version of the name is official in Germany, while the English version of the given name is official in the US.

You said previously that in an O'odham Wikipedia, it would begin something like this: Chuk Shon (Milgahn Tucson). However, being an O'odham Wikipedia, there would be no reason to include the English name, since it is of no historical significance whatsoever, and anybody wanting to know could click the interlanguage link to en:Tucson, Arizona.

Would it better suit you if the English article began like this: Tucson, also known as Chuk Shon... as is done in articles for alternative, non-official names of places and things? It would be better than your current proposed solution, but it lacks the specific recognition of the name Chuk Shon as being the O'odham name for the city rather than an alternative English name. Thanks, Node 04:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am fine with recognizing the name Chuk Shon as the O'odham name for the city. You seem to misunderstand my argument. I just don't agree with placing it directly after the article title. This is not the O'odham wikipedia. This is the English wikipedia. Including a sentence such as mine above makes it clear what place the name "Chuk Shon" has in reference to Tucson, whereas your proposals would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at teaching O'odham or aimed at bilingual speakers of O'odham and English. My proposal should also be combined with a statement explaining that the name "Tucson" is derived from the O'odham "Chuk Shon", thereby demonstrating the two roles which the term "Chuk Shon" plays in regard to Tucson (as I noted a few posts back.) If the O'odham wikipedia didn't include the name of the town as it is known by the town officials (historical significance is important, node, but present-day realities are also important to note in an encyclopedia, especially with wikipedia's ability to stay far more current than print sources), that would be an interesting choice by the editors of that wikipedia, and one with which I would disagree (although I wouldn't have the language skills to edit it.)

I am unclear as to what your point regarding Munich in your previous post was, sorry.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 05:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

>>I am fine with recognizing the name Chuk Shon as the O'odham name for the city.

And I said you weren't?

>>You seem to misunderstand my argument. I just don't agree with placing it directly after the article title.

Which you have made clear time and time again.

>>This is not the O'odham wikipedia. This is the English wikipedia.

You're stating the obvious.

>>Including a sentence such as mine above makes it clear what place the name "Chuk Shon" has in reference to Tucson, whereas your proposals would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at teaching O'odham or aimed at bilingual speakers of O'odham and English.

How so? (O'odham Chuk Shon) in no way seems to me as if it's trying to teach O'odham (if this were the case, the entire article text would be bilingual with individual English glosses for each O'odham word and vice-versa), nor does it seem as if it is aimed at bilinguals (in such a case the name Chuk Shon would be used exclusively). My proposal makes it very clear that Chuk Shon is the O'odham name for Tucson, as well as the origin of the English name (as I said in my previous post, we have already made a compromise which was to keep that paragraph which I had previously opposed). Your "official language" argument is invalid for reasons I will outline later in this post.

>>My proposal should also be combined with a statement explaining that the name "Tucson" is derived from the O'odham "Chuk Shon", thereby demonstrating the two roles which the term "Chuk Shon" plays in regard to Tucson (as I noted a few posts back.)

My proposal *is* combined with a statement of such nature. Nobody is talking about removing that paragraph anymore.

>>If the O'odham wikipedia didn't include the name of the town as it is known by the town officials (historical significance is important, node, but present-day realities are also important to note in an encyclopedia, especially with wikipedia's ability to stay far more current than print sources)

Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of Arizona indigenous issues. For a present-day O'odham, the name Chuk Shon is not only a historical name but a "present-day reality". The O'odham name remains Chuk Shon, and as such would be the only name required in an O'odham Wikipedia.

>>that would be an interesting choice by the editors of that wikipedia, and one with which I would disagree (although I wouldn't have the language skills to edit it.)

And even if you did have the language skills, everybody else would oppose you and the decision would be repeatedly upheld no matter how many times you objected.

>>I am unclear as to what your point regarding Munich in your previous post was, sorry.

I will try to explain it better: since the official language of Germany is German, in any article on a German city, common sense dictates to the reader that the German name is the *only* official name, and whereas English is the national language of the United States of America, in any article on an American city, common sense dictates to the reader that the English name is the *only* official name on a federal and almost always a local level as well, no matter the relative placement of names.

Thanks! Node 15:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, node, I wouldn't let such a proposal stand. "Tucson, also known as Chuk Shon" is not reasonable. Nobody calls it that. Tucson is the name of the city, the sounds of which are derived from Chuk Shon. It is NOT also known as Chuk Shon. RickK 05:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I accept your apology, RickK. It's no biggie, since you don't hold ultimate authority over all decisions made on Wikipedia anyways. I also understand your misplaced concern that nobody calls it that; after all you have not interviewed every single person on Earth as to what they call the city, nor do you currently live anywhere in Arizona. I will help you with that one: Yes, some people do call it Chuk Shon. That would be well over 12000 people, by some estimates 30000. It is indeed also known as Chuk Shon. Thanks! Node 15:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Really? Where's YOUR poll? RickK 18:40, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

• my* poll? The US census and estimates of population statistics in Northern Mexico.

Node 21:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, that would be a count of the number of people of that ethnic group, not a count of the number of people who CALL Tuckson Chuk Shon. I'm of various Celtic derivations, that doesn't mean I call Dublin Atha Cliath. RickK 21:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

No, that would be a count of all the people that speak that language (the ethnic group is larger), which is basically a count of the number of people who CALL Tucson Chuk Shon. You may be of "various Celtic derivations", but would you write on a census that you are a speaker of Scottish Gaelic? Node 02:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

node said "Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of Arizona indigenous issues." I tire of this sort of abusive language, and I'm not going to allow myself to be subjected to it. I have made my points, and I am now finished discussing this with node. This is not the first time that node has been asked to stop using abusive language and has continued. A discussion with him is proving to be an impossibility. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 18:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that that is not abusive language, but a simple statement of opinion and perhaps even fact. If you were to say "the sky is green", and I were to say "Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of celestial hue", would you say that's abusive too? I wouldn't. What I would consider abusive language would be something along the lines of "geez, you're so stupid" or "you're such an asshole", and for that reason I generally do not say such things to people on Wikipedia whether or not I would like to. There is a difference between saying "you are ignorant" and "you are ignorant to..." or "you are ignorant of..."; the former indicates general ignorance which I would personally consider an attack and/or an insult in most cases, whereas the latter indicates an assertion of a person's unfamiliarity with a specific topic. Seeing as 1. you are a Minnesotan, 2. the only reason you even know about this debate is because I mentioned something regarding it on #wikipedia and you subsequently decided I was wrong and decided to take a stand (since then I have offered a compromise, but you were obviously unwilling to compromise although at the time you pretended you were; once I implemented our compromise you decided that wasn't good enough), 3. you do not mention anywhere in your userpage any number of years living anywhere in Arizona, nor do you appear to have edited Arizona-related articles more than minimally (to say nothing of Arizona indigene-related articles), I think my judgement that you are in general ignorant to Arizona indigenous issues is logical, just as if you were to tell me I am ignorant of Minnesota indigenous issues, and that would not offend me because it's true. The Golden Rule (which I believe is mentioned in WikiLove, though I'm not sure) dictates that if I would not mind you telling me that I'm ignornant of Minnesota indigenous issues, I should not think twice before telling you that you're ignorant about Arizona indigenous issues, as long as I believe that to be true.

In addition, I have continously showcased my willingness to come to a reasonable solution by using polite language, including but not limited to so-called "expressions of gratitude". Your assumption that my remarks were made in bad faith are against the general Assume Good Faith policy, which since the beginning of this I have observed with you (not once have I said anything along the lines of you being in this argument just because you don't like me or want to irritate me)

I have also been offended by some of the things that you have said, but because of the AGF policy I have remained silent with regards to them and for that reason have avoided much unnessecary confrontation that would have occured had I not AGF'd.

I also hope you realize that such a withdrawl from a debate it tantamount to a general abstention.

Thanks. Node 21:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's just following the "don't feed the trolls" dictum, which I am now about to do. RickK 21:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's tantamount to a general abstention. In addition, you assertion that by withdrawing from this discussion, you will be following the "don't feed the trolls" dictum, you are attacking me (or at least somebody in this discussion) personally much more than if you told me I was ignorant of Arizona indigenous issues. If you abstain as well, there won't be many people left in this discussion (perhaps Stan, Fuzheado, Buster...). Thanks! Node 02:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Node_ue, a recommendation - brevity is the soul of wit. Your writing, "Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of Arizona indigenous issues," is at best acrimonious and at worst an insult. You consistently pull out the red herring that since none of us have ever lived in Arizona, we should all accept your view as gospel. Rather, we are debating points of style and consistency with other articles, and that does not require our travelling to Arizona and living amongst the people. Nothing mentioned so far has convinced the majority we should break from convention. Fuzheado | Talk 02:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to quote me? I never said anything about how you guys should accept my view as gospel since none of you has lived in Arizona, nor is that my belief. Node 20:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In addition, where does it say its convention to not include names like that? --Node 07:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active? I would side with kmccoy and RickK. --Gary D 06:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)