Talk:Iringa

Population

I want to raise questions about listing Iringa's population at over 1 million. My guess is that this is reference to the population of Iringa Region as a whole. But this article is supposed to be about the regional capital itself. The population of Iringa Urban District is only 151,000, so it's very misleading to imply that Iringa is a city of 1.2 million. I think this should be amended ASAP.

Various

IRINGA is NOT derived from LILINGA meaning fort.

Iringa is cool half the year, then very cold the other half of the year.

Best bars are LUSAKA BY NIGHT and SOWETO in a suburb called Kihesa. Try Ulanzi beer for $0.10 a bucket (depending on what season it is).

Each pork at Mama Siyovelwa's (ask a taxi driver) - but be aware that it takes 4 hours to get your food and you get so hungry you eat the table whilst waiting.

Iringa has the best internet service in East Africa - go to IRINGANET, but not during the month of Ramadhan as the guy in charge has a nicotine deficiency and will bite your head off.

There is no significant nightlife in Iringa - you would have to be really scared of the natives to drink in bottom's up. The Friday night disco at Ruaha International is good if you're 14 and want to get drunk for the 1st time.

Uhindini is a nice place to walk down, and the market is historical and fun.

Riverside campsite is good for sneaking off with other people's wives.

Thanks, although this kind of information is probably better off at somewhere like Wikitravel (a travel-guide), rather than here. Regarding "LILINGA", web sources include [1] and [2]. Are they mistaken? — Matt Crypto 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

City status

Is Iringa "offically designated a city"? The Tanzania article currently states that "For administrative purposes, Tanzania is divided into 26 regions...Ninety-nine district councils have been created to further increase local authority. These districts are also now referred to as local government authorities. Currently there are 114 councils operating in 99 districts, 22 are urban and 92 are rural. The 22 urban units are classified further as city (Dar es Salaam and Mwanza), municipal (Arusha, Dodoma, Iringa, Kilimanjaro, Mbeya, Morogoro, Shinyanga, Tabora, and Tanga), and town councils (the remaining 11 communities)." —' that somewhat implies that Iringa is not a city in the same legal sense as Dar or Mwanza. This page also states, albeit somewhat unclearly, that "Mwanza and Dar es Salaam are two cities in Tanzania so far". (If it is not a city in the legal sense, I would argue that the most idiomatic English language description would be "town", but that's less important.) — Matt Crypto 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In the East African nations which were formerly British colonies, city status is in the gift of the government. In Tanzania, as Matt says, only Mwanza and Dar es Salaam have city status, even though other settlements may be colloquially referred to as cities. Warofdreams talk 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As of 2018, Tanzania has only six official cities following the recent declaration of Dodoma as a city by Tanzanian president adding to Dar es Salaam, Tanga, Mbeya, Arusha and Mwanza. Other regional capitals including iringa are informally referred as cities but they still host the status of towns and municipals. Franxescolive (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Englishman who went up a mountain but came down a molehill

Matt, I don't want to get into a flame war with you, but what is your obsession with making sure Iringa gets called a "town"??? In Tanzania, something is a city if the goverment gives it its own "Urban" district; this would be the "citation needed" that you are looking for. Furthermore, as you should know, the Swahili word people use to refer to the place is "Iringa Mjini" - in a country that is about 80% rural, a settlement of over 100,000 people is most certainly "mjini." There are plenty of places that qualify as "towns" in the English sense, such as Njombe, Makambako, and Mafinga, and these places are not given "urban" district designations by the Tanzanian government, and they are not really spoken of as "miji" in Swahili, except when talked about in contradistinction to "vijiji."

Those are the affirmative reasons to consider Iringa a city, in addition to all its urban attributes, such as industry, transport links, communications, a big soccer stadium, etc. The other reason to talk about it as a city rather than a "town" is that it is bloody demeaning for a Brit to proclaim that an urban area of Africa isn't worthy of the exalted status of "city," and should remain with the quaint colonial appellation "town." Let's look at some British "cities": Inverness, population 51,000. Stirling, population 41,243. Maybe Iringa isn't London or Liverpool, but that doesn't mean that you should make a crusade out of insisting that it is just a romantic relic of Germany's and Britain's gentle civilizing mission.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malangali (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've a number of points in response, but first, I'd encourage you to assume good faith — you've seen that I'm British and seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some sort of arrogant colonialist. I really don't like that implication, and I think it's quite unjustified. I do my best to put aside my biases and cultural background when editing Wikipedia, and we can disagree without resorting to name-calling. Enough said about that.

Regarding Iringa: what you've stated in the article, namely that Iringa is "officially designated a city", may not be true, and we need to find a reliable and verifiable source. This is my biggest concern at present. As you probably know, countries often bestow an official "city status" on settlements. We have a system like this in the UK, and it's not particularly logical or related to importance: see City status in the United Kingdom. For example, I'm quite happy to point out that my home town (Walsall) has somewhere between 100,000-200,000 residents, and is in no way a city. My concern is that Mwanza and Dar are the current sole "official cities" in Tanzania (quite apart from the question of whether people would use the term "city" for other settlements in non-offical contexts).

In addition, and this is of lesser importance, I would argue that "town" is a better fit than "city" for Iringa. As you've noted, it's common to refer to Iringa, in English, as a "town", therefore it's appropriate to use that term in the English language Wikipedia article. You point out that Iringa is termed mji in Swahili; but mji is translated as either "town" or "city" in dictionaries — so at least some miji are indeed "towns" and not "cities", if these scholars are anything to go by. — Matt Crypto 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To add some other data to the above, consider the official designation of cities in Kenya where, for a few weeks in 2002, Mombasa was not an official city, whereas Kisumu was bestowed city status alongside Nairobi: [3]. Further, Arusha was granted city status this year, according to its article. — Matt Crypto 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Matt, I give up. You obviously know best. Well, maybe you don't, but you're going to keep changing the entry to reflect your insistence that Iringa is a town and not a city, and it's not worth my time to keep track of your dominion over this page. Darn the NPOV, full speed ahead, it's a town!

You actually have presented a persuasive case that the legal English definition of "city" in Tanzanian administrative parlance is reserved for Dar, Mwanza, and Arusha. The corresponding legal English term for urban centers like Iringa is "municipality." If you want to be a stickler for legalisms, then you should consistently refer to "Iringa Municipality" throughout your (and I emphasize, your) article. You have made no case at all that there is any entity legally known as "Iringa Town," so clearly designating it as such represents a POV and not an existing bureaucratic distinction.

Feel free to overlook the obvious social acceptance among Tanzanians that Iringa is a city. (A small city, but a city nonetheless.) Feel free to overlook the connection between the government's creation of an Iringa Urban district and the implications of city-ness implied by "urban." Feel free to look proudly on your fortress Wikipedia entry, and to defend it against all assaults on your sensibilities about the friendly hill-top town in southern Tanzania.

The banana milkshakes at Hasty Tasty Too will still be the best in the world. And you'll still be wrong. But at least Wikipedia will bear the lasting imprint of your sentimentality. Malangali 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel this way, Malangali. I don't suppose that I can persuade you, but I did try and do my homework. Iringa is not offically designated a city at present (unlike Mwanza, Dar and Arusha); you asserted this in the article, but it is simply factually incorrect. A seperate question is whether Iringa can be referred to as a city outside of the Tz government's definition. OK. First, I assure you that "urban" can imply either town or city, particularly when contrasted with "rural": see urban area. I checked two English language travel guides for Tanzania, both of whom use "town". Moreover, I contacted some Tanzanians in Iringa, who agreed that it was "town" rather than a "city" (not that personal anecdotes are a reliable source in Wikipedia, just to try and convince you that the "town" thing is not just from some deluded mzungu insisting on a patronising colonial viewpoint, or whatever it is you've decided I am doing).

I don't believe in individual ownership of Wikipedia articles. However, "city" is not the best word here, and it's entirely reasonable for me to oppose it. Again, I regret clashing with you on this, and I'm very happy to discuss and change my mind on things, and I'm glad you've improved this article, but I'm afraid I will not simply agree with whatever you say about Iringa just because I'm English and you (I presume) are a Tanzanian. — Matt Crypto 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer here, I have a few comments. First, Malangali, you need to assume good faith and rerfrain from making personal attacks. Accusing Matt of furthering some colonial British agenda is just out of line. Matt is a cool-headed editor, and he has obviously searched around trying to find a definitive answer to this question. Second, if there is some legal definition of what the Tanzanian government considers a town or city, that seems like the most natural, neutral way to address this issue. Matt has stated that he has evidence that Iringa is not considered a city by the Tanzanian government. Malangali has countered Matt's evidence about Iringa not being a city by saying that it can then only be named a municipality. Okay, there's a solution. But "Iringa is a municipality in Tanania" is somewhat vague. Matt's tour guidebooks are a good place to look to see how other English-language publications treat this issue, and so far the evidence points to "town".

Malangali has presented anecdotal, first-hand evidence that Tanzanians tend to refer to the place as a city. Unfortunately, such evidence is verboten on Wikipedia, as it is considered original research.

I would suggest going with the official government designation for Iringa if it is city or town. If it is the vague municipality, as Malangali suggests, check several English-language sources (tour guides are a start) and go with the most common appellation there. — BrianSmithson 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, the point is not to discuss whether the city of Iringa is or is not referred to as "Iringa Town." It often is, and historically has been, ever since it was a quiet colonial administrative outpost. I call it Iringa Town myself sometimes when speaking about it in English. I also say that New York is a heck of a town, that it's gotten a lot easier to find good falafel in London Town (although I don't know if any Brits would use that phraseology), or that, when staying outside of central Dar es Salaam, I'm going into town for a meeting. The question is not whether urban Iringa is sometimes, or even usually, called Iringa Town in popular speech or (since when did the exceptionally useful Lonely Planet, usually intentionally written on the fly by travellers with limited local historical, social, or linguistic knowledge, become a source for an encyclopedia?) popular travel writings. The question is whether an encyclopedia article should recognize the social realities of urbanization in contemporary Africa, regardless of whether those realities are masked by ingrained linguistic conventions.

As I acknowledged above, I made too broad a claim when I said that Iringa was "officially designated as a city," and Matt was right to point that out - it is not a City with capital letters, like the City of London. In my haste to stop Matt from incessantly (in good faith, of course) reverting my changes, I mistakenly equated the official English tag "Urban" with the word City, to my everlasting shame. Note, however, that at no point did I change the photo caption for Iringa Town, because the image is as iconic of "Iringa Town" as the photo of the Palace Museum is of Stone Town. My objection is not to the use of the term "town" in spoken language, but to the use of the term in a factual description of the place. Factually, Iringa has all the attributes of a small city, and is referred to as such in Swahili and in many English contexts. Insistently calling it a Town with capital letters simply is a point of view, or perhaps a point of willful blindness toward today's urban realities.

Iringa is a small city that is often called a town and is officially called a municipality. I don't see what is so hard about having a Wikipedia entry that says as much. Malangali 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not so simple when people disagree about the above :) For example, Tanzanians living in Iringa have told me that it's a town, and not a city. You've said that "factually Iringa has all the attributes of a small city" -- OK, but does it? What are the criteria of a city, in contrast to a town? Truth is, the difference is fuzzy: see city#The difference between towns and cities. Outside of government legal declarations (which are often inadequate) or strange rules about cathedrals, there is no accepted definition of what makes a settlement a city or a town. To decide what to use in Wikipedia, then, we could either use the clumsy word "muncipality", or else try to fathom out what people actually use in English (dictionaries tell me that the Swahili word mji can mean "town" as well as "city"). Examining things like travel guides is not unreasonable way to go about this, but we can look at other things as well by all means. — Matt Crypto 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Matt that Lonely Planet and the like can be good sources for encyclopedia articles as long as one is judicious about what information one takes from them. They do a decent job in covering a nation's popular culture, for example, discussing local varieties of music and the like. In this case, however, it might very well be as you suggest, Malangali, that the LP (or Rough Guide or whatever) simply says "Iringa is a pleasant little town . . . . " or something and is speaking colloquially. That would not be a good argument for calling it a town in this article.

I think Malangali's suggestion above might be the best way to open the article: "Iringa is a municipality", if that is, in fact, its official designation. Then, if it seems necessary to do so, add a note that "Iringa is colloquially referred to as both a town and city". — BrianSmithson 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian's suggestion sounds good to me. Again, I'm going to leave off editing this page for the time being, but I'm all for the amicable solution that we seem to be headed towards. Of course, we could follow this classic bit of guidebook wisdom, from the current number one Google hit for Iringa, go2africa.com:

Iringa is a charming, if somewhat down-at-heel town which lies at the heart of Tanzania’s tea industry. Market days bring forth an eclectic mix of expatriate wives dressed in pastel frocks shopping with their baskets and mingling with raw tribes people from the bush for their monthly trading spree.

Does that give a sense of why the historical usage of "town" has such a patronizing flavor? -- Malangali 21:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, if I ever start writing about pastel-frocked expat wives on Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter) just, well, shoot me or something ;-) But "town" is a word that can be used without any sense of being patronising. Far more patronising are "endearing" (the old sentence with that word was added by someone other than me, by the way), "charming", "down-at-heel" etc. — Matt Crypto

The Tanzanian government does make an official distinction between a town (mji) and a city (jiji). Until last year (2005) the only cities were Dar es Salaam and Mwanza, but I remember hearing at some point (possibly around the end of 2005???) the government gave around 6 or 7 more towns city status, of which Arusha was one. Others were Morogoro, Dodoma (which despite being the captial wasn't officially recognised as being a city until then), Mbeya,... and a few others. Unfortunately I've tried to search for this announcement on the internet and haven't been able to find any reference to it. From memory I don't think Iringa was one of these newly added cities but I could be wrong. Can anyone else remember this or find any reference to it? Sorry I can't give any references but hopefully this will jog someone else's memory! Woodwardmw 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

City status revisited

Started afresh as I came to this via an old link on the talk:Africa-related notice board page. Just wanted to observe that reference to British English usage might not be the only relevant one. In the U.S. application of the term "city" varies wildly. In the state of Massachusetts where I grew up, a municipality can apply to be a city rather than a town if it has 30,000 people or more (affects forms of government). In the western U.S., where I now live, it is common to find municipalities of 500 to 1000 people called cities (to me from an anthropological perspective they probably ought to be villages), while conversely people will refer to settlements of 5000 or even 10,000 as "small towns." Bet the more Anglophone countries one looks at, the more variety one finds.

Anyway, from my particular cultural POV, a settlement of 100,000 is definitely a city, at either the upper end of "small city" or lower end of "medium sized city," even if colloquially it would also be a town at times. The three largest cities in the U.S. state of Connecticut (Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport) all have between 100,000 and 150,000 people. Hartford is the state capital & historically a nationally significant financial center (insurance industry), New Haven is an intellectual center due to Yale University & used to have a good deal of manufacturing, Bridgeport is a former industrial town in decline. Yes I know I said town, because as Matt says, both terms imply urban.

Yet on balance I think Malangali has the better case about the significance of a settlement of this size in Tanzania or any primarily rural country.

Possibly this could be helped by context: how rapidly has Iringa grown since 1950 or 1970? Portraying the dynamic of urban growth could go a long way to avoiding the problems Malangani raises of minimizing the modernity of Tanzania (& Africa more broadly). Likewise, does the 100,000 figure refer strictly to the munipal area, or does it include peri-urban settlements as well? Again this helps in conveying scale as well as dynamics. Likewise again, since there seems to be evidence that Tanzanians use both terms, maybe the article should too, and try to say something about which they use when, which could convey something about Tanzanian views of urbanness, which could be useful.

Finally, I'd suggest that "urban area" itself might be a useful term at times. Chris Lowe 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)