Talk:Olympic Valley, California

message: I suggest changing the name of this article to Olympic Valley, as that is the official name. The nickname (Squaw Valley) can be noted as an AKA. Comments?
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per wikipedia:Article titles#Common names, Wikipedia usually uses the common name, not the official name. The area is commonly referred to as Squaw Valley. This is why that is used over the official name of Olympic Valley. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: How many inhabitants live in Squaw Valley? Please mention the source !!! --79.218.111.64 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhabitants 

message: The article switches back and forth between the two names without explanation. The Etymology section just says the original name is considered offensive. I added a line about Olympic Valley being used as an alternative, but there is nothing in this article to say when Olympic Valley came to used, whether it's the official name, is there ongoing controversy, what about other uses of the name in the area such as events and the waterway, etc. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest the article be named after the official name for the valley, whatever it is listed as in government surveys, and a redirect or link from a disambiguating page be made for more colloquial names. ThirdDolphin (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we done any examination if the valley is actually named Squaw Valley? I am aware of the resort using the name, but not valley. Or was the valley historically referred to as Squaw Valley? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

text: That was me. I found a few citations that supplied the missing information. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name issue needs expansion 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move   (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Squaw Valley, Placer County, California →  – This name is unambiguous; there's another city in California name Squaw Valley. Usually cities in the United States are in "city, state" form, not "city, division of state, state" form. Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats nonsensical WP:OSE. Has the name of this valley has been officially renamed to Olympic Valley? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it has been officially renamed is irrelevant. Official names are used by primary sources, while common names are used by secondary sources. And our policy in this is to go by secondary sources, and common names. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Has anyone done a comparison of the RS on this issue? There is a lot of POV pushing on this article about this name issue and the related controversy. Where is that comparison of the sources? Here on talk? I might have missed it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 January 2021 

message: I'm confused about your reversion of my edit. It's well documented that the name "Olympic Valley" was coined in 1960, ahead of the Winter Olympics that year, so references to that name before then are an anachronism. At the same time, I took pains to avoid unnecessary use of the valley's previous name, which I'm not trying to defend by any means. Thanks for your reconsideration. Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored my edit. Please discuss here if you disagree with avoiding both the derogatory and inaccurate names for the valley before 1960. Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @Phoenix X Maximus: Thanks for clarifying. It certainly is appropriate to refer to Olympic Valley in this article. My edits were only to the first part of the "History" section. By extending the name "Olympic Valley" further back in history, we wind up in a situation where the article has to say that "Olympic Valley's name was changed to Olympic Valley", which is illogical. However, if you think "the valley" is too ambiguous in some places, we could apply circumlocutions like "what is now Olympic Valley" or "present-day Olympic Valley" sparingly. It would also be great if we could find a source for what the Washo historically called the valley, if anything in particular. Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Squaw Valley, Placer County, California →  – The proposed title was proposed in January but rejected. Olympic Valley, Placer County, California, is a more recent workaround for the fact that Olympic Valley, California, is already occupied by a redirect. (There's only one Olympic Valley in all of California, so there's no need to disambiguate by county.) I think a better case for this title could've been presented in January, but now there's even stronger evidence for it. Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: this article's title was reverted by an administrator with . This request has been altered to reflect the correct current title. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree from the points above raised by Minh in the section above. We also have this recent federal lands renaming, here. We also have [SF Chronicle] confirming the Squaw name of the town (when discussing another town with the same name controversy) in this recent article. We do have the Sacramento Bee using the name Olympic Valley as well as Sierra Sun. Never heard of Sierra Sun, but Sacramento Bee was a major regional newspaper (although they are all not too major anymore). Seems some merit for both names at this point in time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the recent edits make the case worse (creating the section that you referred to in your comment above mine here). I see another user created the section and you were highlighting it. In general I find the new section to be pushy and trying to sway the discussion. Making edits to demonstrate a discussion is one thing, but when they are rife with poor sourcing is not the right approach. The naming section is interesting and probably contains a lot of content more fitting for this talk page. A sentence or two certainly due on the article itself. There must also be some use of the term Squaw Valley presently as well, I thought I found some when I googled it. It is clear there is an ongoing discussion about the matter in the press, and the new section makes it sound like the controversy is finished and everyone has moved on. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jtbobwaysf: I tried to indicate that "Squaw Valley" remains closely associated with the place, but I'm trying to remain objective and avoid conflating this particular community's experience with the broader effort to eliminate "squaw" from usage. I'm honestly having difficulty finding reliable sources to show the degree to which "Squaw Valley" continues to refer to this place, without making the fallacy of citing individual examples as proof of a more general trend. I couldn't even find any evidence of a current controversy over the Placer County place name, as opposed to the Fresno County place name, except at Wikipedia. If you've had more luck, please feel free to improve the section. I placed the section above the "History" section only because that seems to be the general guideline. Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I dont have any objection to the position of the recently added section. It is as you mention common to discuss the name (I think we often use Ontology or some other high-brow word that is slipping me at the moment, right?) as the first section. Here are some searches that might assist in seeing more local news adding word placer as well as adding word tahoe. These help google to find what we are looking for. In both cases we do see RS such as the SF Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, etc using it. I cannot rule out that some of those sources are using it in reference to the now defunct name of the ski resort, but when I take a quick read, sometimes it is referring to the community on its own. Often the name is also used in conjunction with the ski resort name controversy, such as 'the ski resort changed its name, when will the town do it?' I can also note (my comment is essentially worthless, however not much more worthless than some of the sources in the name section) that I have never heard anyone use the term "Olympic Valley" when referring to the place, not once in my life. I am not a member of the community but live somewhat nearby at times (I travel a lot). Anyhow, my trailing comment is simply my own OR and I do not advocate for anyone to take it much into account, we follow the sources here. I should note that I voted as oppose for now as I think that eventually the article gets changed. I would also note that my opposition to it is weak, but alas I am opposed at the moment. I guess in time this matter will get consensus eventually (might be some years, who knows). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jtbobwaysf: Google returns different results for the same query depending on location and other factors, but when I use your suggested queries, I get a lot of results that affirm Olympic Valley, for example, "Olympic Valley ... formerly known as Squaw Valley"  and "alpine valley formerly known as Squaw"  (actually a mirror of this article at unofficialnetworks.com, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia). Others are outdated but could be discussed in a historical light: of the "local mountain and creek, as well as businesses, streets, a park and a firehouse in the area" mentioned in , only the park is still called "Squaw Valley". You've mentioned a couple times that the "Name" section has poor sources. Is that still the case after I removed these sources from what had been the "History" section? (I agree, the ones I removed were pretty weak in the context of this article.)I don't doubt for a second that both names are used interchangeably to refer to the community, or that some people in 2022 prefer "Squaw Valley", so I'll continue to seek a reliable source to cite for that. But I would like to understand the guideline under which folks here think the title should remain unchanged; otherwise, the question would be hopelessly subjective. WP:COMMONNAME has been cited a few times, but it doesn't require a clear frontrunner, nor even a photo finish in the case of a name that is considered problematic. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The LA times source you link to seems to be a reprint of the Sac Bee source. As for Sierra Club, they seem to be avoiding the issue by referring to the "alpine valley" with neither word capitalized. Seems they too dont know what to call it. Maybe we should call it the place formerly known as Squaw Valley, like Prince did for a long time :-) I am a bit making light here, of course that is not a serious proposal. Yes, I think the sources you removed make the section fine for me. I did simplify just now the naming of the valley, that seems clearly has been renamed as well. I dont really have a clear guideline on the change, but I do think that the longstanding name would stay until we find cause to change it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you've taken the Sierra Club out of context. Their article makes it abundantly clear that, in their view, it's called Olympic Valley. To avoid repetitiveness, they used a circumlocution – just like you did in this edit. The six-word phrase I quoted was enough for me to show that they consider "Squaw Valley" to be outmoded, but it doesn't support your claim that they don't call it "Olympic Valley". Sorry if I left the impression that they only referred to it euphemistically.WP:COMMONNAME is as clear a guideline as we'll get on the proposed change. The current title, Squaw Valley, Placer County, California, has one or two problems, depending on one's point of view: it has more disambiguation than strictly necessary, and it uses what is increasingly regarded as a slur. The guideline gives us the option of solving these issues by using "Olympic Valley", as long as it's common enough. So is "Olympic Valley" common enough, irrespective of whether "Squaw Valley" is more common? I hold that it is and have tried to present reliable sources demonstrating as much in #Update on name and #Move per preserve.If you disagree, I think it would be helpful to articulate what would have to change before it meets your standard. Totally optional, of course, since I've already taken so much of your time, but it would give the closing administrator more of a sense of whether there's consensus against or just no consensus at this time, given the low participation in this RM. –  Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject California has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @Paine Ellsworth: Indeed, it isn't an obscene word in the most literal, original sense, but tribal advocates have been making the point that the word had already been co-opted as a pejorative or disparaging term by the time it was used to name many places in the West. In California, the term's popularity coincided with the California genocide, so today it's also seen in that negative light by native people.  Similarly, some older words for other ethnic groups, such as for African Americans and Asian Americans, are also seen as unacceptable today despite an original, literal meaning that may seem benign etymologically. I suppose the word's Massachusett origin would be less relevant; the indigenous languages of North America are quite diverse, so it wouldn't quite be the same as calling the valley "spouse" in one's first language anyways. Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for your genuine description of the negative meaning of the word for people who suffer in the aftermath of the unconcionable. Your words do help me to understand the reasons for why the original peoples are offended by the word. Thanks again, beyond words, editor ! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So at some point in time it was not a slur, and became a slur. Is that correct? Is there any dating around when it might have become a slur? I tried reading the Squaw article and it was very difficult to digest, with some huge WP:overcite in the lede as well. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that the answer to that question, exactly when the word became a slur, is lost in antiquity and probably varies with different places. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 September 2022 

message: Forgive me, but just as I fail to understand other forms of ethnic slur, I am hard-pressed to make out why Native Americans would consider the naming of anything, a valley, a town, a waterfall, anything, after the general term for "spouse" would be indigestible. If it were called "Spouse Valley" or "Wife Valley" I don't think any ethnic slur would be sensed by anybody. So why exactly do the local NAs consider the name "Squaw Valley" to be unacceptable? Is it because of the word's Massachusett etymology? Would the original Americans favor a more local name that represents their own word for "wife" or "spouse"? I'm truly at a loss to comprehend all this, and I suppose that hopefully adds to my objectivity. Would really appreciate any light that is shed on this subject! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Paine Ellsworth: Indeed, it isn't an obscene word in the most literal, original sense, but tribal advocates have been making the point that the word had already been co-opted as a pejorative or disparaging term by the time it was used to name many places in the West. In California, the term's popularity coincided with the California genocide, so today it's also seen in that negative light by native people.  Similarly, some older words for other ethnic groups, such as for African Americans and Asian Americans, are also seen as unacceptable today despite an original, literal meaning that may seem benign etymologically. I suppose the word's Massachusett origin would be less relevant; the indigenous languages of North America are quite diverse, so it wouldn't quite be the same as calling the valley "spouse" in one's first language anyways. Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for your genuine description of the negative meaning of the word for people who suffer in the aftermath of the unconcionable. Your words do help me to understand the reasons for why the original peoples are offended by the word. Thanks again, beyond words, editor ! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So at some point in time it was not a slur, and became a slur. Is that correct? Is there any dating around when it might have become a slur? I tried reading the Squaw article and it was very difficult to digest, with some huge WP:overcite in the lede as well. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that the answer to that question, exactly when the word became a slur, is lost in antiquity and probably varies with different places. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant disclosure

message: Moving here per WP:PRESERVE. Advocates for the move above might want to point to this (if they want). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've removed this passage from the article for being "nonencyclopedic". Could you clarify what makes these details nonencyclopedic, or how to rework the passage to be encyclopedic? I do think it is worthwhile to give readers a sense of the "Olympic Valley" name's prevalence on the ground, regardless of whether someone living elsewhere has ever heard of the name. It's also important to somehow tie this into organizations being renamed, especially the public service district (the closest thing to a local government) and Palisades Tahoe. Finally, I think it makes plenty of sense for a geographical article to indicate what the place is called on maps. If your concern is about WP:BALANCE, then perhaps we could make the passage less specific, for example, referring to "maps" in general and only naming the maps in citations. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these sources are not suitable RS. We dont use pictures from bing, AAA, etc. As I said my own WP:OR is useless I was just providing it as an anecdote. Most of these sources are trying to introduce some sort of pending activity relating to proposed changes. The key point is if the name change has already occurred or if it is proposed? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jtbobwaysf: I don't follow. These sources were introduced to corroborate the fact that map publishers generally call it Olympic Valley; some have for decades. How is it that we have templates such as , , , etc., if these sources can't be cited as reliable sources? WP:WIAN even describes maps as "disinterested, authoritative reference works". What if I remove this list but add these citations to the bold name at the beginning of the article? Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know what you mean by adding the sources as the bold name at the beginning of the article. I dont think the policy you quote is referring to bing and google maps, it was referring to national geographic society (a highly reputable print magazine, I certainly am not going to argue with that). The policy even calls out against using google. What does national geographic call it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jtbobwaysf: National Geographic Magazine has used both names interchangeably over the years, but WP:WIAN is specifically referring to the Society's highly regarded print maps, which label the community as Olympic Valley. (I added a citation to the list above.) It also says "maps ... whether printed or electronic" which electronic maps do you have in mind? The policy further warns against using "Raw counts from Google", as in raw search result counts. Please understand that there is a difference between Google Search and Google Maps, and between Bing Search and Bing Maps. I was suggesting to append citations directly to the MOS:BOLDTITLE in the lede paragraph, which is a common practice in contested cases. Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think there is any difference between google search results and google maps. Do you have any evidence that google maps is editor based? As for the NatGeo name that sounds pretty conclusive to me, and as per WP:WIAN policy I would think it would apply. Good job on finding that. Let's leave the trash sources out such as bing and google maps. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jtbobwaysf: OK, I've added a few of the citations directly to the lede paragraph, just a few for brevity. I still think it would be useful to point out the degree to which the community has "shed" the "Squaw Valley" name, as the Chronicle put it. "Olympic Valley" appearing on maps isn't a new phenomenon, but the trend to rename businesses is quite recent.Regarding Google Maps, you might be thinking of their business listings, which are sourced in part from contributions by business owners and users. Or toponyms in some other languages, which come directly from Wikidata labels. However, toponyms in English are largely edited in-house. Google is tight-lipped about their internal processes, but here are some of the few glimpses they've given to the public:  They've dabbled with crowsourcing via the Map Maker and Local Guides programs, but it's largely limited to making suggestions that get reviewed by Google contractors , not nearly as freewheeling as OpenStreetMap or Wikipedia.Nevertheless, if you strongly believe that Google Maps is an unreliable source, the proper place to raise this concern would be in WP:TFD, in a request to delete , which is currently used on 14,730 articles, including a great many WP:USRD articles that rely exclusively on this source. (I've spent over a decade competing with Google Maps, both as a hobbyist and commercially, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as "trash". :^)) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont really know how the google maps template is used on other articles. Can you give some examples of how it is used? I suppose the point you are making is that many other articles are already using google maps content (which I presume to be AI) as RS? If many other articles are using this AI content, I dont really see why this article wouldnt follow that. This maps stuff is somewhat outside my wheelhouse. Yes in general I agree your comment in which you stated "Olympic Valley" appearing on maps isn't a new phenomenon, but the trend to rename businesses is quite recent." Sometimes these pushy discussions come to wikipedia an attempt drive change (in this case a name), my only point is that wikipedia follows news not makes it. As for the maps thing, please explain if my interpretation of content is wrong. Normally we dont accept WP:UGC and I would think that aggregation of search by google as AI would essentially be that. But we are indeed already facing more and more AI every day in the sources in general.  Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Maybe it is an age thing and personal experience as well. When young I often skied there and everyone I know in my age group (nearing 50s) still refers to it as Squaw. Never have I head anyone say 'I'm going to olympic valley.' To be clear I recognize my experience is only OR, but as an editor we often use our experience to assist us with the what we believe is the truth and look for sources that support it. As for google maps I find it a bit horrifying that wikipedia is now following what a couple of google software engineers are doing for today, the point of wikipedia is a find consenus among informed transparent individuals. Alas wikipedia is much less transparent now, and it seems mostly a lot of special interests, to a horrible extent in the political articles. But I digress... You seem to have very clear knowledge of map naming conventions, and far out of my wheelhouse.  I suppose I must admit my opposition to the naming is largely due to my OR as well as the lack of sources that confirm that my OR is incorrect. I dont consider google algorithm to be an effective method for naming, but I also recognize when the consensus is otherwise (seems the map project as you mentiond is ok with google's choices). I dont mind the name section in the article, it is certainly controversial, and I think controversy is encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I see the move has been approved. Apologies on my revert of the IP address editor, I didnt notice the move had been completed above. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move per preserve