rst's comment here confirms that the pun was a reason for choosing the name. This definitely agrees with the historical record and disagrees with the FAQ. The FAQ is wrong here. I think most people will be magnanimous and allow that there were two reasons for choosing the name, and the second was to honor the Apache nations. rst's comment here or in 1995 does not disallow that possibility. My belief is that the historical record does not support this magnanimous view. The primary and overwhelming reason was almost certainly the pun, and the "honor" argument is post-hoc justification. The rest of this message describes my argument.

I've been trying to pin down what "definitive" means. I thought it meant that something was incontestable, and some places agree with me. Merriam-Webster: "serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation"). I don't think this alone provides a final solution, so I don't think rst's comment here is definitive.

While Collins English Dictionary has a definition "most reliable, complete, or authoritative". I read this as a slightly less absolutist meaning, and in line with your reading.

I tried looking up what 'definitive' means, in terms of literary analysis, but wasn't able to find a description. So I'm going to define what I meant by "definitive": Is it enough that it would convince a majority of the people that the current text in the Apache FAQ is wrong? Building on to that, what would "correct" look like?

There are two parts to the FAQ answer: "The name 'Apache' was chosen from respect for the Native American Indian tribe of Apache" and "Secondarily, and more popularly (though incorrectly) accepted, it's a considered cute name which stuck". I'll call these the "honor" and "cute name" arguments.

1) As I've said several times now, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the current FAQ answer is incorrect. The historical evidence shows that the 'cute name' was important, and rst's comment here confirms that reading of the historical evidence.

The minimal correction to make the FAQ fit the evidence is to strike "(though incorrectly)". This would say that there are two reasons, with "respect for the Native American Indian tribe of Apache" being primary, and the coincidence of the pun being secondary.

2) I think that's unlikely. My reading of the FAQ response itself suggests it's ignorant of the actual situation. It uses the singular, when there are 9 federally recognized Apache tribes. Were it me, I would have used 'the Apache nations of North America', but I am also ill-informed of the actual situation. Instead, I think this answer's view is based more on the generic view of the Apache of the 1700s and 1800s. Quoting Wikipedia: "The fame of the tribes' tenacity and fighting skills, probably bolstered by dime novels, was widely known among Europeans." It seems disingenuous to use this argument if the argument itself doesn't honor the history.

The minimal correction here, to improve the level of respect, would be to use the plural, and probably reorder the words a bit since "Native American Indian tribes of Apache" doesn't read correctly.

3) That still leaves "honor" as the explicit dominant reason, while "cute name" is the secondary one. I don't believe this to be true, even though Fielding explicitly says that honoring the Apache nations comes first. Is the minimal correction to reverse "primary" and "secondary", or to remove the ranking altogether?

That is, there can be multiple reasons for what the name was chosen: it sounds cool, it honors the Apache, it has a pun, etc. Was there a subgroup from the start which chose Apache to honor the tribes, and how big was it?

As I explained earlier in this thread, I don't think Fielding has a good understanding of the history and is not informed by input from most of the Apache nations. I don't put much weight into his argument, but I haven't researched it fully. There may be some official statement by one or more of the Apache nations which I haven't seen. These sorts of statements do exist for some sports teams which use Native American names (eg, both the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and Seminole Tribe of Florida endorse the name and its use for the Florida State Seminoles, which caused the NCAA to overturn their own decision that the use was 'hostile and abusive'.)

Instead, I look at the history. As I and everyone else who knows or has examined the history has shown, the first few years of official Apache documentation only talked about the 'cute name.'

That tells me that "honor" was not the primary reason. A possible correction to the FAQ would be to omit explicit ranking while leaving "honor" listed first.

4) I think that would still be incorrect. What little history comes through suggests that honoring the Apache nations was not part of the original decision. The earliest discussion of this is in the thread titled "name" in the earliest Apache archive, starting on Fri, 10 Mar 1995. The key part quotes are:

Cliff Skolnick: We need to pick a name for this project. I don't remember getting a consensus about apache, but perhaps I missed something. Ideas? Thoughts? Rants?

Robert S. Thau: The only objection I ever heard to Apache was that the real Apaches might not be pleased with it.

Note that rst here mentions that there were discussions about how this name ties in with the "real Apaches." This connection was not mentioned in the first post to mention the reason for the Apache name. Someone can reasonably assume that the first post was a summary that did not attempt to capture everyone's viewpoints. Continuing the 1995 thread:

Cliff Skolnick: I kind of agree with this objection, ...

David J. Sanner: Then again they might like it. Can't please everyone. I like it.

Randy Terbush [in the renamed thread 'Multi-homed server support']: I personally like the name 'apache'. As for comments about offending native americans, I see the choice of 'apache' being made out of respect for the efficiency and robustness of these native tribes.

This means that at least one person of the early core Apache developers believes that the "honor" argument is relevant. However, I interpret this as a suggested counter-response to a claim that using "Apache" is offensive, and not as a justification for using the name "Apache" in the first place. Importantly, how are the Apache any more efficient or robust than the Navajo, who are also Apachean, or than any of the other Plains Indians? That's why I think this is best seen as post-hoc justification.

There was obviously some unrecorded debate on the topic. The lack of a written record, and the existence of Terbush's statement, will be used to argue that the name Apache was definitely chosen in part to honor the Apache nations. Indeed, http://tedhusted.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-do-we-call-it-apac... reviewed the same evidence and did just that: "there seem to be two reasons. Because it sounds like "a patchy" (server) _and_ as a tribute to the native Apache tribes".

Hence why I ask if more information. Was there an argument specifically for honoring the Apache nations, and is that written record still accessible?