Talk:Olympic Valley, California

Name

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)

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)

Inhabitants

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

Name issue needs expansion

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)

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)

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)

• Looks like the History section has been expanded since this thread was made in 2019, including when the "Squaw Valley" name was first coined by westward bound travelers during the California Gold Rush, and when the "Olympic Valley" name began being used in 1960. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• For what it's worth, the official Post Office location is Olympic Valley. https://tools.usps.com/find-location.htm?location=1440625 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.19.130 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I reverted these edits on main page. You need to get consensus before pushing your agenda here. . Indeed it does seem that two names are used and probably an RFC should be run before changing it. The ski resort article also changed its name after an RFC process. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2021

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 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Squaw Valley, Placer County, California → Olympic Valley, 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)

• Oppose per this being the official and historical site of the 1960 Winter Olympics (hence the nickname "Olympic Valley" which is just a descriptor of the event). See the opening image, which highlights the present name. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: To be fair, the second sentence of WP:USPLACE does permit the "city, division of state, state" form when additional disambiguation is needed. The question here has always been whether "Squaw Valley" is the more WP:COMMONNAME than the official name of "Olympic Valley".[1] I would certainly oppose moving Squaw Valley, Fresno County, California back to the Squaw Valley, California.[2][3] Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: At wikipedia we cover things, we dont lead on issues. I am unclear here if we are following that the area has been renamed Olympic Valley, or if this is being pushed to make wikipedia politically correct. I think this proposal lacks that clarity, thus I suspect I lean towards oppose at this time, but I am open minded. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Jtbobwaysf, does Wikipedia have "don't be too politically correct" anywhere in its manual of style?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose if this was the common name, then the entrance sign would be changed. The one there is a picture of in the article. I just checked google maps and as of March 2020 it still says Squaw Valley. It is on Squaw Valley Road. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update on name

Previously stated reasons for keeping the current article name have weakened over time, especially over the last year or so:

• As of November 2018, road signs along Squaw Valley Road (since renamed) say "Welcome to Olympic Valley". [4][5][6]
• In October 2020, the public service district, including the fire department, renamed itself to Olympic Valley. [7][8]
• Also in 2020, a private school in the community changed its name to Lake Tahoe Preparatory School. [9]
• In September 2021, the resort changed its name to Palisades Tahoe.
• In December 2021, the county board of supervisors renamed the community's municipal advisory council to Olympic Valley. [10]
• In February 2022, the county board of supervisors renamed Squaw Valley Road to Olympic Valley Road. [11][12]
• Today, the federal government began officially recognizing the eponymous valley as Olympic Valley. [13][14]

The sign depicted in the infobox is a historic monument from the 1960 Winter Olympics. Eventually, it may be just about the only thing that still bears the place's historical name. But its twin sign on the other side of Olympic Valley Road has already been modified to say "Palisades Tahoe". [15]

As for secondary sources, even before this spate of official renaming, well-known travel guides like Fodor's were already distinguishing between the community called Olympic Valley and the ski resort named Squaw Valley (now Palisades Tahoe). [16] Local media uses "Olympic Valley" in datelines. [17]

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 03:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of datelines, it's telling that Associated Press reports usually use "Olympic Valley" in datelines, even when the subject has nothing to do with the valley's name or efforts to incorporate it as Olympic Valley. [18] Based on a search of Newspapers.com (thank you Wikipedia Library!), the last AP report that used "Squaw Valley" as a dateline was in 2013, and it was technically a reference to the ski resort, since renamed. [19] The last one that didn't refer to the ski resort was in 2011. [20] By contrast, the AP has reported many datelines from "Olympic Valley" since 2013. Even articles about the Squaw Valley Ski Resort use "Olympic Valley" as the dateline, drawing the same contrast between the community and the ski resort as travel guides like Fodor's. [21]

"Olympic Valley" has been common in datelines for a long time, but now we can expect "Squaw Valley" to completely disappear from AP reports, now that the AP Stylebook recommends against unnecessary use of the term "squaw". [22]

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Google Books Ngram Viewer can tell us that "Olympic Valley CA" is more popular in print, though that mostly reflects that fact that "Olympic Valley" has been required in addresses for decades. Unfortunately, Ngram Viewer can't tell us much beyond that, because "Squaw Valley" refers to a number of places, including the ski resort that wasn't renamed until last year. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The "we can expect statement" is not how wikipedia works, we follow what has already happened and never predict what might happen. But the rest of your evidence is compelling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Every major online map also calls the community "Olympic Valley": Google Maps, Apple Maps, OpenStreetMap, Esri, Here, TomTom, and Waze. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Every English-language TV news station in Sacramento: KCRA, KXTV, KOVR, KXTL. Every TV news station in Reno: KTVN, KRNV/KRXI, KOLO. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A minor historical curiosity: Caltrans labeled the community as Squaw Valley on its highway maps until 1964, switched to Olympic Valley in 1965, and switched back to Squaw Valley in 1966 before removing the label from the map altogether. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The California Secretary of State's Roster of Unincorporated Communities lists "Squaw Valley", based on Caltrans' Place Names in California. (The latter document used to be published annually but appears to have been discontinued.) Minh Nguyễn ^💬 10:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Like other travel guides, the local chamber of commerce's visitor guide distinguishes between the ski resort and the community named Olympic Valley. [23] Minh Nguyễn ^💬 10:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

See 'The people's peak': Racist slur removed from Tahoe landscape after decadeslong effort by the Washoe Tribe. [24]Lewisday (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lewisday: To be pedantic, that article is talking about the natural features that the community is named after; this Wikipedia article is about the community. In any event, the discussion has moved on to #Requested move 11 September 2022, which is currently open to participation. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Anachronism

@Phoenix X Maximus: 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)

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)

@Mxn: I undid your edit due to the recent name change of the Valley. I thought it more apportiate to call the valley by its name rather than "the valley". Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Requested move 11 September 2022

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.

---

result:
Moved. See below stronger support than the opposition that has been described by the opposer as based on their own OR. The proposer has made their case for the "other" common name that is not considered an undesired slur by the local Native American people. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Squaw Valley, Placer County, California → Olympic Valley, 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) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: this article's title was reverted by an administrator with [this edit]. This request has been altered to reflect the correct current title. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. This recent undiscussed move was a workaround against the previous RM in January 2021, and under normal circumstances should be reverted back to Squaw Valley, Placer County, California until this new one is complete. That said, my question remains: is there evidence that "Squaw Valley" is still the more WP:COMMONNAME than "Olympic Valley", or is there now enough evidence that the latter has overtaken the former? Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Zzyzx11: If I understand correctly, WP:COMMONNAME does allow us to make an exception when the most common name "has problems". Depending on your point of view, there's either one or two problems: more disambiguation than under the alternative, and controversy surrounding the most common name (the use of what's increasingly considered a slur). Under this circumstance, the guideline allows us to use another "fairly common" name, which would be "Olympic Valley". Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you Zzyzx11! The name change from Squaw Valley to Olympic Valley is a controversial one and should first undergo discussion. Thus this discussion to remove the Placer County from Olympic Valley is a secondary and less important point. First we need to discuss if we are going to change a long standing name to a new name (to be clear Squaw Valley is the longstanding name). I am not sure if there will be many sources to substantiate the change. There was plenty of discussion by the resort to change it's name to Palisades, but I haven't seen any use in my own personal experience (aka WP:OR) of any change commonname use to now be predominantly Olympic Valley. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Zzyzx11 @Jtbobwaysf: I had attempted to start such a discussion, but then Phoenix X Maximus moved this article in the meantime. I think the points I raised above make it clear that the trend is going in the direction of "Olympic Valley" on the ground, in print, and in the news media. If I had known about the RM last year, I would've rebutted some of the points made back then. I'm unsure how to draw a definitive conclusion that "Olympic Valley" has overtaken "Squaw Valley" in usage. But hopefully all the evidence I've given shows that at least "Olympic Valley" is very common and well established. WP:COMMONNAME itself recommends avoiding vulgar names if possible. Locals have acknowledged the vulgarity and an alternative is possible. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Neutral for now. I opposed the last move request. Looking at the official list, 6 placenames in Placer County have been changed, but the Governor has to sign the bill to change the community name. Perhaps we should wait for that. It is conjectured this will occur on the 23rd of this month. I usually feel that Wikipedia articles should reflect social change, not lead it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Richard-of-Earth: I assume you're referring to AB 2022. That's more relevant to Squaw Valley, Fresno County, California, where local efforts to rename the community went nowhere. But Placer County (which has authority over the name of this unincorporated community) has officially called it Olympic Valley for years, and only one Caltrans sign would be affected as far as I can tell. In this specific case, I think we're rather late in recognizing the new name. The new name is not all that controversial: in a survey of local residents last year, 79% of respondents supported renaming Squaw Valley Road to Olympic Valley Road (which is what happened). [25] Minh Nguyễn ^💬 19:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Squaw Valley Park <-- needs more work. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Richard-of-Earth: Not sure what you mean by needing more work. But if we're at the point of finding an individual outlier that's still called Squaw Valley (that's in the process of being renamed), then that just bolsters the argument for Olympic Valley. Quoting WP:COMMONNAME:

  When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

   – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support By all accounts we have everything we did to change the name to Olympic Valley. The papers are calling it Olympic Valley, the county it is in has confirmed the name change and we have several sources to back it up which is why I changed it in the first place. I didn't think it would be controversial. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now I think for now I oppose given that there seems to be a lack of clarity about what is going on, with AB bills, the governor's pen, some newspapers still referring to the controversy, etc. I think we should follow rather than trying to lead, this is an encyclopedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for at least giving due consideration to the new evidence presented. I've compiled the points above into a new section of the article to hopefully provide some of the clarity you're looking for. For what it's worth, I regard AB 2022 as a red herring: the express purpose of that bill is to compel other local communities to carry out exactly the same steps that the Olympic Valley community has already taken in adopting a different name in consultation with local tribes. But I believe the criteria for renaming this article was already met at the time of the previous RM, well before the Interior Department's announcement or the bill on Governor Newsom's desk. By the way, rummaging through my print map collection, I was unable to find any that labels the populated place as "Squaw Valley", only "Olympic Valley". (Excuse me while I fold the maps back up!) Minh Nguyễn ^💬 08:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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) I removed the part of the section that I found un-encyclopedic and moved to talk below. The paragraph was not properly sourced and appears to have been added as part of this move argument, and thus should be on the talk page and not the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@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" [26] and "alpine valley formerly known as Squaw" [27] (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 [28], 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)

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)

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)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irrelevant disclosure

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)

@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. [29] 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)

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 Minh Nguyễn! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Move per preserve

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)

The Olympic Valley name appears on community welcome signs, in road names, and in the names of local government agencies, such as the Olympic Valley Public Service District and Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council. As of 2022, Palisades Tahoe and Lake Tahoe Preparatory School have removed "Squaw Valley" from their names, while plans to rename the Resort at Squaw Creek and Squaw Valley Park have been announced. The community is labeled Olympic Valley on maps published by Rand McNally, National Geographic Maps, DeLorme, Thomas Bros., and the American Automobile Association, as well as major online maps, including Apple Maps, Bing Maps, Google Maps, and MapQuest.

@Jtbobwaysf: 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)

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)

@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 {{cite map}}, {{Bing maps}}, {{Google maps}}, 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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: [30][31][32][33] 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 [34], 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 {{Google maps}}, 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)

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)

@Jtbobwaysf: Yes, I understand that user-generated content is to be avoided. In the original version above, I avoided citing OpenStreetMap which is UGC, though I did cite a physical sign by way of Mapillary, which crowdsources photos with quality control measures in place. I don't have any evidence to show that AI or ML is powering place labels in Google Maps, or that the place labels are being aggregated directly from search results as business listings are. On the contrary, [35] has anecdotes of Google staff manually copying another map, and [36] has screenshots of the internal software used to manually edit the map. Kentucky Route 286 is a typical example of Google Maps being used as the main source for a geographical article. (In fact, WP:USRD prefers Google Maps as a source much more than I would like, even recommending that editors trace roads from Google Maps into Wikipedia templates.) That said, more rigorous sources (such as street-level imagery from Mapillary) would probably be expected in case anything is disputed.

I can understand why you perceived the RM and "Name" section as pushy, given that it followed so closely after this month's the BGN decision. But from my perspective, the BGN decision was what clued me into the disconnect between "Olympic Valley" being so established versus "Squaw Valley" being used informally by out-of-towners. As a resident of the Bay Area, I would never have known about this community of less than 1,000 residents in the first place, only the ski resort formerly known as Squaw Valley, thanks to all the advertisements for it on TV. My intention is to make sure that the article appropriately reflects this distinction between the community and the ski resort (and also to counter some humorous but inappropriate vandalism). It would've been pushy for me to request that Squaw Valley, Fresno County, California, be renamed to Yokuts Valley, California, based on a proposal that has yet to be accepted by the local community to any extent.

 –  Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

What community around

This statement: "The valley surrounding this Placer County community is now known as Olympic Valley as well" doesnt sound correct, or is too vague. To my understanding the Olympic Valley refers only to the valley, what other area does it refer to? To we have sources for this? Does it also refer to Alpine Meadows, California? That is the only other community nearby, but I dont think so. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Olympic Valley originally referred to the unincorporated community, the one defined by the first sentence of the article. This year it was also applied to the natural valley. The CACGN and BGN intended to name the valley after the community. [37] Admittedly I'm struggling to word this sentence artfully. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Then why revert this awkwardness back? Was there something factually incorrect about my edits? Jtbobwaysf (talk)

@Jtbobwaysf: Yes, that's unrelated to the awkwardness I mentioned above. As I mentioned in the edit summary, your change incorrectly stated the post office's original name and mischaracterized the new name as only being used by the post office. This has already been discussed at length above. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You are stating the community has been known as Olympic Valley since 1960, without attributing that to the post office (if I am correct). Or is there another source you are referring to? Or is this WP:SYNTH? CACGN is being used as a source to anchor the text that the name has been used since 1960. Does this source refer to something in 1960? I didnt see that. I do see the post office source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed this source, as you didnt respond to my comment above. If this source supports the text, please tell me how. Maybe I was looking at the wrong page? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: (I missed your reply because I wasn't subscribed to this talk page section. Feel free to mention me if you need my attention to something.) I think we're interpreting the same sentence in two different ways: I intended this sentence to say that Olympic Valley is one of the names that has been used to refer to this place stretching back as early as 1960. (The key word is "also".) I think you're interpreting it to mean that someone has referred to the community as "Olympic Valley" in print in every year since 1960 and no one has called it "Squaw Valley", but that's not what the article says. I've already found sources attesting "Olympic Valley" for many of the years since 1960 (some of them linked in the discussions above) and could probably make it a continuous set using periodicals like Skiing and Fodor's, but what would be the point? You would be quick to complain about WP:OVERCITE, and I would be quick to agree. I don't think it's necessary to get pedantic over this section. Readers can come away with the impression, reasonably supported by the existing citations, that both names have been in use to varying degrees since the Olympics. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, the citation of "California Place Names" was formatted somewhat misleadingly. If you followed the link to Google Books, you'd see just the sentence that talks about the post office. But actually, this is an entry in a gazetteer of places (not of post offices per se). The mere fact that there's an entry called "Olympic Valley" attests to the existence of a place called "Olympic Valley" as of 2010, when the book was published. The post office is mentioned as part of the name's etymology. I reformatted the link so that Google Books shows the full entry in context. Most of the entries about natural features begin by describing the feature, but for communities, Gudde goes straight into the post office's history. You can see similar examples on the page that aren't just post offices, such as Olympia and O'Neals. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mxn: so you are saying that this source refers to it as OV since 2010? Does this source have a wikipedia entry that we can link to? 'XYX says it has been referred to as OV since 2010.' That would be more appropriate if the source is due for mention. It if not due for mention directly, then to WP:WEASEL it by saying a more unspecified amount of time is not encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: No, this gazetteer was published in 2010. That means the place name was still in use by 2010 but does not mean it was coined in 2010. The definition rests on the post office being renamed ahead of the 1960 Olympics. Any reasonable reading of this source would conclude that the name has been in use since that time (not necessarily exclusively).

Nevertheless, allow me to humor this WP:PEDANTRY: wikt:Citations:Olympic Valley contains citations attesting to the use of "Olympic Valley" to refer to this community (not necessarily exclusively) in every decade "since 1960". This is just the tip of the iceberg, to avoid the English Wiktionary's own WP:OVERCITE-like guideline. I have not added these citations to the Wikipedia article because the existing citations (as well as the map citations at the beginning of the article) already support the claim well enough.

The onus is now on you to demonstrate that somehow the "Olympic Valley" name came into use and fell out of use seven times, which would otherwise be a WP:SYNTH interpretation of these citations. And if you continue to debate this point, you'll also need to demonstrate the converse proposition, that "Squaw Valley" has been used exclusively since 1960. I've been letting this point slide for your benefit, but the article lacks any sources for "Squaw Valley" except in 1969.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 16:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

In the discussion of changing the post office name from Olympic Village to Olympic Valley, the article says this was done in August, 1960, "prior to the Olympic Games." This is not right, because the 1960 Olympic Games were held eight months earlier, in February, 1960. Schimja49 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schimja49: Thanks, I removed that passage. The cited source seems to have conflated the USBGN's August 1958 decision to rename the community with the opening of a post office to serve the community. The original Olympic Valley Post Office was only temporary, to serve the Olympic Village, but a more permanent post office did open after the Olympics concluded. If anything, this strengthens the claim that "Olympic Valley" has been in use all along. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 19:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mxn: Back to my initial question, what does this refer to: "The valley surrounding this Placer County community" ? If you are saying the valley is called Olympic Valley, is the article referring to a larger valley that Olympic Valley is a subset of? I am not aware of any larger valley and that is what the statement sounds like. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: This article is about an unincorporated community (i.e., a collection of houses and businesses) called Olympic Valley (among other names). The name includes "valley" because it is located in a valley. Most people used to call the valley Squaw Valley, but some people started also calling it Olympic Valley a few years ago, and that name became official this year. So now we have two things named Olympic Valley, one inside the other. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 11:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mxn: I dont think the additional text is really necessary if we are indeed referring to two different things as Olympic Valley refers to the Olympic Valley. The who sentence is awkward and confusing. Squaw Valley also referred to the same geography (in addition the ski resort, but that is now fixed), so I dont see the reason for the sentence as it implies we are referring to another valley, and that is false. There are two other valleys nearby, the one that contains the Truckee river and the other that contains the Alpine Meadows, and I dont think Olympic Valley refers to either of those. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: It's only relevant because the section begins by describing the valley (which is the community's original namesake). If we don't mention that the valley has since been renamed, then the reader gets the impression that it hasn't, because the valley doesn't have its own article. Apart from that minor issue, it would suffice to mention the valley only in the "Geography" section. But if it's too confusing, we could move it down to the bottom of the "History" section. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mxn: To my understanding there is no distinction between the valley and the name at this point in time. "Olympic Valley" is the name for the community that is located in the valley that bears the name, and formerly named Squaw Valley (apparently renamed as part of an Olympics marketing effort by Mr. Cushing). Correct? We dont need to discuss the parts in the parenthesis, that is my OR. I dont understand your distinction between the two. If you feel that the distinction is encyclopedic, then maybe we can include that farther down in the article. But alas, you might be aware of many articles that present a name where the valley and the name which includes valley require a distinction? Geography articles is a bit out of my wheelhouse. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: It is pretty common for geography articles to conflate natural features with populated places when there's significant overlap. I don't intend to turn this into an article about the valley, since much of what makes the valley notable is already covered incidentally by Palisades Tahoe. But one of the section's key points is that the community's original name comes from the valley's original name, which predates the community. This is not unusual – compare Scotts Valley, Simi Valley, the other Squaw Valley – but what's unusual is that the valley was later renamed after the community. The distinction between the two concepts is only interesting from a historical perspective (and for the BGN, which for some reason has never recognized the community's existence but does recognize the post office and census-designated place). I'll try to work it into the "History" section to avoid confusion. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mxn: yes, your explanation here would be helpful in the article as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)