Talk:Santa Rosa, Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

[edit] Santa Rosa to Kaij Mek?

I'm not sure why this page was moved from Santa Rosa. The mover didn't even change the later reference to "Santa Rosa" in this article. A search on Arizona's state web site doesn't come up with any hits to Kaij Mek or Kaj Mek, but plenty for Santa Rosa. I'll wait a bit for comment, and then move it back if I hear no objection. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 03:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This location is known by over 99% of its inhabitants as Kaij Mek, and I believe it's been listed on a map that way too. --Node 19:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but that is not true. That most inhabitants speak O'odham is without doubt true; that most O'odham would would say in English "I'm going up to Santa Rosa" is also true. Therefore, I'm changing it back to Santa Rosa. I incidentally get the impression that Node is not a usual visitor to the region, so I'd guess that my opinion (which this is) is much more weighty than his/hers.

I never said they said it that way in English. Rather, it was suggested during the earlier debate on Tucson that "if such a place exists" (i.e., where the majority speaks O'Odham), that the page should in fact be located at the O'Odham name (similar to Mumbai and as some style guides suggest for Lisbon or Warsaw). I'm not completely sure I agree, given that "Santa Rosa" is the English name, but it was said and very few people disagreed with it, probably because they were mostly not Arizonans and were unfamiliar with the sociolinguistic situation here - that is, that there are whole towns where a majority of the population speaks a Native American language as their first.

I do, in fact, frequent the area; I was in Sacaton last night (not exactly next door to each other, but it does show that I am not unfamiliar with O'odham toponymy first-hand) -Node 06:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, I am SO sorry. It's just that I've always thought that the title of a reference article should tell the average searcher that he has reached his goal. It's a clarity vs. pedantry thing, I guess.

(You can always refer to the Tohono O'odham name in the text: "(Tohono O'odham: Kaij Mek)".)

First of all, try to mail a letter to Kaij Mek. It won't go through without someone bending the rules. No assigned ZIP code; try it: <http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp>

Second, look up Kaij Mek in US Census records. Ain't there. It is NOT a Census Designated Place by that name.

Third, since you live in the area, look in the phone book for institutions. Most are referred to as "Santa Rosa School", etc.

Fourth, look in the phone book for references to Kaij Mek. Not as many as to Santa Rosa, eh?

And then, just for fun, look up Kaij Mek on Google. Amazingly enough, you will find almost all of the first 20 article-title references to Kaij Mek (including the Volapük Wikipedia article) are based on the English Wikipedia article: intellectual incest at its best - self-validation by repetition of self-reference. We should try this with Tlön, I imagine.

Your remark "It was suggested" is a very weak excuse to do anything unless we know who suggested it and why.

Using the same logic that you are "not completely sure" that you agree with (but that you use anyway), I would imagine that we should list Barrow, Alaska under "Ukpiagvik". Forget the governmentally assigned name or the name used by most Wikipedia searchers when it conflicts with the ethnic name used by the majority of inhabitants at home, right? To hell with sense and ease of use.

Or do we do this only for certain names? Like the ones that look really cute and make us feel warm and fuzzy for us having protected them and shown our typonomic and linguistic superiority over the philsitines?

In other words, what precisely are you trying to accomplish with "Kaij Mek" that is not better accomplished with "Santa Rosa", except to look cool?

I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a reference. I'm probably wrong, as usual.

198.60.159.10 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we're supposed to be civil to one another at Wikipedia. If you rephrase all of that in a civil manner, then I will gladly respond. --Node (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)