Talk:Tucson, Arizona/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: Start contributing, you people! Only one person has done anything so far! 134.114.59.41 07:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Launching the Tucson Wiki

message: 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.
===Version 1===
====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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: December 16-23, 2004 vote

message: ====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)
thread_title: Version 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Commentary by Version 1 proponent(s):

message: # BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1 support (sign here):

message: ====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):====
# --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)
thread_title: Version 2

message: # --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)
thread_title: Version 2 support (sign here):

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vote tally

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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 ¿? 18:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments on proposed versions, or other ideas:

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clarification

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Permanent residency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seasons 

message: 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)
thread_title: Government

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Miracle mile is 'interesting ugly'; Speedway is 'boring ugly'  ike9898 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Speedway - ugliest street? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Population density 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The oldest bar in Tucson 

message: this word , tuscon? it seems strangely un-english and magically aztec. anyone know anything pertaining to this? kzz* 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  what is the phonetic origen of  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is the title not "Tucson, Arizona"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article moved back to [[Tucson, Arizona]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Tucson, Arizona#Crime|"Crime"]] section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nice work! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Population projection

message: Why is the caption to the sunset picture say "Tucson desert", shouldn't it be Sonoran desert? --kris 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to my own comment, I changed the article. --kris 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Tucson desert?

message: Since an editor keeps adding external links to a boy's choir, I'd like to make sure there is consensus on this article to follow Wikipedia's style guideline as it relates to external links.  External links should be limited to sites that directly relate to the subject of the article.  I do not believe a boy's choir qualifies.  Thoughts? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'm not sure either way. Tucson Boy's Choir is kind of a big deal around here - I've been hearing about them ever since I got to Tucson in 1986. They're a small part of Tucson's notability, I think. We don't need a ton of detail in this article, but if that community organizations article ever gets going, they should be in there - or perhaps in their own article if there's enough source material (i.e. not all from the same place). --Karen | Talk | contribs 19:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't dispute that they are kind of a big deal.. but so are about a thousand other companies and organizations in and around Tucson.  That doesn't mean they should have external links in the Tucson article.  The links should be limited to select sites that are about Tucson, not about organizations in Tucson.  As you said, if the choir is ever notable enough to have its own article, the link would be placed there. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The boys choir editor says that there are are 14 or 15 links similar to his here; that shows how bloated this article has become.  These should be cleaned out per WP:EL.  As an example, under Tucson Folk Festival we have ... Organized by the Tucson Kitchen Musicians Association, volunteers make this festival possible. Arizona's only community radio station KXCI 91.3-FM, is a major partner, broadcasting from the Plaza Stage throughout the weekend. ... Much of the article is simply Chamber-of-Commerce type boosterism that doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  --CliffC 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just gone through the article and nuked most of the external links.  I turned a couple of them into wikilinks because the subject has an article here, and I turned one into a citation because it was there to back up a statement.  --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm the editor who keeps adding back in the link on the Boys Chorus. Two points. 1. I have no issue at all with this being an article on Tucson, not the Boys Chorus. In fact, I agree. When I get around to it, I'll write an article on the TABC and that will be that. 2. As for linking to external sites, WP:EL does not say to go through the article and nuke all the external links. Quoting: This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.  In other words, when I went through and looked hard at the 14-15 external links, pretty much all of them (1 or 2 were on the bubble) actually fit the criteria given in WP:EL. They pointed to the main site of an organization which would qualify on its own merits for an article. It is suggested that someone write an article, and in an ideal world of course, someone will. But till then, I believe the links should be put back. We are not doing our readers any favors by taking away their ability to get to the home pages of notable organizations ranging from the major newspapers to symphonies, to yes, the Boys Choir. Instead of getting into a revert war, I ask that y'all take a hard look at WP:EL. In my view, the removed links were doing precisely what they should have been doing. --Bzengo 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bzengo, I definitely see your side of the issue.  I don't agree, but I'm just one person; if the consensus is that your and the other external links should be in the article, I will respect consensus.  I do feel that the external links I removed from the article benefit the organization more than they benefit the article.  The organization gets a free link from one of the world's most popular web sites.  Who wouldn't want it?  I propose the following compromise:  If the organization whose link I removed is notable by the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), we will make a stub for the organization, wikilink it to this article, and then the external link can be in the stub.  If the organization is not notable at this time, the link stays gone.  Thoughts? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spike_Wilbury, thank you for your response. I'm fairly new here so I'm a little uncertain of my ground on stub articles. In theory what you propose sounds fine. In practice, because I am new I don't know if I should be -- and I apologize in advance; this is not an attack on you. It genuinely is that I simply don't know how things operate and don't want to make a mistake in my naivety -- concerned about stubs being marked for deletion or, um, I think it is called speedy deletion, and consequently we end up with the worst of both worlds. What are now Wiki links in the Tucson article turn red as their stubs get killed off and the users then can not get to what I think they should get to. On the other hand, assuming your good faith, if you tell me what I am concerned about is unlikely and the stubs should survive, then I take you at your word and accept your compromise. I'm do agree with you we should link to sites which are notable on their own and not link to sites which are not. Moving those links to stub sites might encourage someone to expand them which is a good outcome by itself. I have to get some sleep right now, but perhaps you (or I tomorrow) or someone else by then, can grab the names of the sites which got de-linked, copy them here, and then we can decide which ones get stubs (are notable) and which ones don't. Let me know please about the issue I'm concerned about in my newness. If I'm concerned about nothing -- and of course if no one else has a problem with your proposal, then we're fine. Goodnight. --Bzengo 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the best solution to me.  To keep the stubs from being deleted, the key I think is to create them with at least one secondary source cited, to help establish notability.  Tucson Boys Chorus should present no problems in this respect; they get enough press coverage etc. to provide citations.  By definition, this should also be true of other organizations that truly merit articles.  It is true that pretty much every organization, band, event, etc. tends to want maximum coverage here. The notability guideline is the best way to establish what articles and mentions actually need to be here. I tend to want to delete mentions of redlinked bands, for example, but if they ought to have articles due to established notability that's another story. --Karen | Talk | contribs 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I put in the magazine ones many months ago, by way of establishing that they exist and what they are.  If nobody feels that's important to do, it's fine with me. Thanks for the list! Your assessments sound about right, I think. --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you two don't waste any time. I wake up for half a moment and look at what's done. Y'all are good. This sounds fine to me. My concern here isn't the Boys Chorus so much; it's simply where I entered into the conversation although I appreciate both of you being so generous in taking care of someone new to Wikipedia. If someone can point me in the direction of a stub article format or how to create a stub, I'll get to work on some of these in the next few days if no one else does anything before then. Thank you again for heading me in the right direction. Oh... one more point: Ft. Lowell is a historic landmark in Tucson going back to 1860 when it was an actual Fort. There are a number of articles and papers. In addition, the area around Ft. Lowell Park is currently a rapidly growing hot spot full of development, one of the "in" places to live. In short, I'd make it its own stub article as well under the title Ft. Lowell. --Bzengo 05:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true about Fort Lowell as a whole.  On the stub guidelines, try this: Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal stub article.  I'll try to look in on them and help out a little.  Thanks! --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Karen - Sorry; I've just not had time to get to making these stubs. I looked at what you said to look at for creating stub articles and got all confused; will take another crack at it after vacation, which... Going on vacation later this week till mid August. Will give it all another swing once I'm back and up and going again. In the interim of course, at least what was pulled is here for anyone else to grab and work with if they wish. Heh. Not that I'm trying to avoid doing it myself, oh no not I. I'm sure I'm actually smarter than the stub article format. Grrr. Laters. --Bzengo 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title: Make this page nicer