Talk:Tanawha Trail

The name Tanawha is not Cherokee

I edited out this line:

"Tanawha, the Cherokee word for fabulous hawk or eagle is an appropriate name for this trail that offers hikers views of distant mountains."

It has since been reinstated, and I am eager to see this verified.

Tanawha is not a Cherokee word. Eagle is ᎤᏬᎭᎵ (uwohali.) Hawk is ᏔᏬᏗ (tawodi.) It's likely the person who wrote this got it from the National Park Service page about the trail, which is also wrong. This error may have originated with the NPS site, it shouldn't be perpetuated on Wikipedia. If you look at the page for Tanawha, Queensland, the word is sourced as a Maori word for a water guardian, although the source they're citing seems to have been removed.

Please verify this is a Cherokee word? It's in no archive, lexicon, or dictionary. Lostcheerio (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sparkgap, the source seems to be unavailable? Valereee (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't noticed. The citation is now restored with archive.org. –Sparkgap (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The intro paragraph was cited within the article. It is from the National Park Service (NPS), which is generally considered a reliable source. There are many independent sources which make the same claim, and I have added a few to the article.

If these sources are indeed inaccurate, then we need a reliable source which verifies that. If such is available, because of Wikipedia's overriding policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, the article should probably address the disputed accuracy of the name, rather than remove it entirely.

The etymology is notable to the subject, particularly considering the heavy branding of the trail with hawk symbology. Throughout the entire length of the trail, and in most NPS materials relating to the trail, the association is reinforced.

Wikipedia polices are against original research, so we would need something like a retraction from NPS or a publication from reliable source, which challenges the claim. To the best of my knowledge, no authority or expert on the Cherokee language has yet challenged the validity of the word's origins. Are there publications which dispute the etymology of Tanawha?

The lack of evidence from some Cherokee sources supporting that Tanawha is a Cherokee word, is not necessarily proof that it wasn't a Cherokee word. It is plausible that it was omitted from modern publications, while having historical usage.

The connection to Tanawha, Queensland appears to be purely coincidental, and that article implies the location's name may be a misspelling of Taniwha. Are there any reliable sources which link the two geographically distance locations?

On an ending note, if it can be established that Tanawha was never a Cherokee word, as NPS claims, then I believe that should be formally addressed; however, Wikipedia is an ill-suited setting tackling that issue. –Sparkgap (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So, you reinstated it *again* giving tourist brochures about hiking trails as your sources for what is and isn't a word in Cherokee? Those may be reliable sources for identifying sparkling vistas, but not for indigenous language lexicons. Where is your evidence that Tanawha is a Cherokee word? Lostcheerio (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please notice that among the cited sources added are an encyclopedia maintained by the State Library of North Carolina and a book written on the history of Grandfather Mountain. Those are not the only sources available which state the same origins; they are non-guides I readily had access to.

Can you provide a source which disputes the origins of the word Tanawha? –Sparkgap (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a travel brochure, not an encyclopedia article

This piece is hardly an encyclopedia article. It reads like a travel brochure and hiking guide. My suspicion is, it's entirely derived from the NPS brochure given as the source. Since it's US Government, there's no copyright concern, of course. But all the hiking details and the wondrous talk about the wondrous things that can be seen are hardly necessary or appropriate here. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Public domain material was used to jump start the article. Unfortunately, few editors done much work on it since. –Sparkgap (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)