Talk:Aquinnah, Massachusetts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessor[edit]

I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article; if you would like some commentary, give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

There seems to be no information on why the town was renamed. Perhaps this should be included? Mwahcysl (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The residents of Aquinnah do not like to talk about the subject. They are too embarrased to discuss the reason. Too many people took the town name as a synonym for homosexual oral sex. That's the real reason, and in general, townsfolk will only confirm that "off the record." 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't see the connection. Is it embarrassing because of some traditional connection? Perhaps your explanation should be written into the article. I'll get to work on that. Mwahcysl (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see any basis on which to write that into the article. Any sources? Any citations whatsoever? How about the ON the record reason that it was renamed as part of returning the town to its Wampanoag origins? Arwcheek (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though the 'on the record' reason is a story spun by a PR machine of some sorts, given how few believe it. The fact that someone is backing up the 'on the record' version is deeply suspicious, and suggests that paid consultants are behind the spin. We can cite this talk page, and speculation should certainly be allowed on the regular page. Mwahcysl (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion, Aquinnah doesn't exactly have a big "PR machine." Helen Manning, one of the Tribe's elders, wrote a book called "Moshup's Footsteps: The Wampanoag Nation, Gay Head/Aquinnah: The People of First Light" which gives the prevailing perspective of the Wampanoag people. It's good documentation of the Tribe's reason for pushing the name change. As for the rest of the population, a large chunk seemed fine with Gay Head, otherwise the vote would have been overwhelming or unanimous--it only passed by three votes! Arwcheek (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. By three votes, do you mean it was 4-1 or 10,003-10,000? There is a large percentage differential there, which might mean that we should start looking into vote fraud, as well as what firms were involved with the building of the voting machines. It sounds like Helen Manning was conducting PR in favor of the name change, which is the only possible reason why she would write a book on the topic, to sway public opinion. Has she been interviewed or vetted by a legitimate media source? It still sounds to me as though there is an army of paid PR consultants behind the name change. We need to stick together, gather evidence and prove it in a court of law! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwahcysl (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vote was 39-36, as stated in the main article and cited in the Globe. Vote fraud? PR machine? an army of them? this is getting taken way out of context. It's a very small town and my guess is that the vote was conducted at a new england style town meeting. I think I'm fairly reasonable in saying that the sentiment was to change the town name as part of returning the town to its origins.
On a side note, the name Gay Head, legend has it, comes from the night that the City of Columbus sank off Devil's Bridge (Moshup's Bridge). "The boat that went to the rescue in the midst of a blizzard was manned by 'Gay Headers.'" The town was incorporated in 1870, and the ship sank in 1878, so the dates don't quite line up.Arwcheek (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting more and more interesting. Does the "Devil's Bridge" imply that there was some sort of Satan worship taking place on the island? This might lend some evidence toward what the first commenter was talking about in terms of the name change. Mwahcysl (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Arwcheek (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, is it at all possible that the term "Devil's Bridge" could ever be misinterpreted by someone who doesn't know any better to be of Satan worshiping origin? Mwahcysl (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before the town was incorporated, "Gay Head" was the name of the cliffs. This geographical name was established by 1851, as it is mentioned in a book published in that year: Melville's Moby-Dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I don't think you should be so quick to say something like that. As a land owner I can't say I ever sensed any "embarrassment." The name Aquinnah is the original, Wampanoag name meaning "land under the hill" or "land at the end of the shore." Much of the population is Wampanoag, and in 1996(?) the name was voted back to Aquinnah, coinciding with the federal government's return of town incorporated lands to the Wampanoags. (The land was in 1870 transferred to the town of Gay Head when it was incorporated.) The name change was really made possible after the Indian Claim Settlement in 1983 which gave 238 acres of public land back to the Tribe, with Federal help to purchase 180 acres which was authorized in 1987. I believe it went up for vote twice, and failed the first time by only a few votes. I'll have to look into that some more. Arwcheek (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, the question remains, was there ever a single case of "gay head" occurring in the town? Can it be proven that no such thing ever happened? If not, the original name needs to be used as the title of the article. Mwahcysl (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Town Seal[edit]

Should the town seal image in the article be changed? On the actual town website, they use a different seal, seen here: [1]. Sahasrahla (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say absolutely since the new seal uses the new name. Arwcheek (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Jr.[edit]

Didn't John Kennedy Jr's plane crash here? And if so, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? 209.91.15.36 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moshup's Beach[edit]

I edited and made the Moshup's Beach piece it's own heading. The tone seemed far too conversational and I edited it to have a more factual and less circumstantial tone. Please feel free to edit as deemed fit, however the style did not seem to reflect a legal or serious tone, especially in light of the seriousness in protecting the cliffs. Is Moshup's Beach one and the same as Jungle Beach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.16 (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy close no move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:USPLACE

Aquinnah, Massachusetts → Aquinnah – Aquinnah is the only town or city in the United States using this name. There is no need to have Aquinnah, Massachusetts, it is unnecessary. Aquinnah currently redirects to the current page. Aidan721 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • The suggestion seems contrary to the widespread use of the WP:USPLACE convention on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about places like Boston, New York City and thousands of places in the world? Yes, I know that they are major cities in the United States and throughout the world. My point is that using the (, Massachusetts or any other state/disambiguation when not needed) is inconsistent and unnecessary. --Aidan721 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't read the guidelines, but there is a reason that those are exceptions. If you have a problem with the guideline, try to change it. For now, consistency must rule the day. RGloucester — ☎ 03:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USPLACE includes an explicit list of cities recognized without state disambiguation, per the AP style guide: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my oppose comment above, the WP:USPLACE guideline has been heavily debated. The source of the contention is that most of the media and reliable sources in the United States commonly append the state to place names, thus making it common usage (per WP:COMMONNAME) and sufficiently natural that it may be considered part of American English. The only cities where the American media does not normally do this is the ones cited in the Associated Press's style guide. Almost all of these articles on US places were created back in 2002 with the state in the title, so it will require wide consensus for such massive page moves (which it has not in the past). Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vote to change name is incorrect[edit]

The article states "vote of 79 to 21", which is either an error or revisionist history. Newspaper reports confirm my memory 79 to 76. Reference 5, to the Boston Globe, which presumably supported the lopsided count is dead. However, numerous contemporary newspaper articles are available on-line and confirm the 3 vote margin. My family owned property in town at the time (and still does).

A previous attempt to change the name in 1991 failed - 89 to 36.

I don't believe that the town records for that time period are available on-line.

References:

1st vote: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7660356.html

2nd vote: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1933&dat=19970512&id=96kgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=72gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5662,2369214&hl=en http://www.upi.com/Archives/1997/05/15/Gay-Head-voted-out-as-Mass-towns-name/9370863668800/ http://articles.courant.com/1997-05-23/features/9705230029_1_town-names-changed-colorful-town

Approval had to be confirmed by the Massachusetts Legislature (Great and general court); that was a vote by elected representatives from the entire state, confirming the home rule petition. The change took effect in 1998. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter110

Interestingly, although the name change was driven by members of the tribe, the official name of the tribe remains "The Wampanog Tribe of Gay Head". http://www.uanativenet.com/sites/default/files/files/constitutions/Part%20V%20Tribal%20Wampanoag.pdf

The history of the claim settlement that caused the tribe to be recognized can be read at http://aghca.org/about/ The actual agreement and court documents can be read at http://aghca.org/about/judicial-and-governmental-issues/key-documents/

The newspaper of record is the Vineyard Gazette, which is available on microfilm at the Boston Public library. Perhaps someone nearby could print out the relevant articles and scan them.

Rectapedia (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aquinnah, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aquinnah, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to change name is *still* incorrect[edit]

A more recent article in the Vineyard Gazette (the paper of record) also cites 79-76. [1]

Both links on the references to the erroneous 79-21 are now dead.

I don't know how to make the proper edit to the article, but it is annoying that the false narrative persists. It was a very close vote, and remains somewhat contraversial. Truth matters. So does every vote. (This update is written as the 2020 US presidential election is hanging on thin margins...

Rectapedia (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2018/05/17/aquinnah-officially-turns-20-gay-head-name-endures
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aquinnah,_Massachusetts&oldid=1198890833"