Talk:Squaw

"Totality of being female"

@Crescent77: what sources this? You keep adding it without any changes in sourcing. This sounds odd and undue weight. If there is any source for this, and you have not indicated what source that might be, it is outnumbered by the WP:RS sources. What is this source? Stop reverting and explain this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight? What is the source? Really, are you serious? You need to stop reactively reverting sourced material and read the references. It's wording taken directly from the reference at the end of the sentence, as explained in my revert. Crescent77 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, as I said on user talk: Cite the specific, WP:RS source that sources your addition, "the totality of being female", and exactly which Algonquin morpheme or morphemes supposedly mean this. You have not done so, despite repeated requests. You have simply reverted. Your addition of new text is unsourced unless and until you cite the specific, RS source and which, if any, morphemes it applies to. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 04:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As is standard, the reference at the end of the sentence contains the information. I have repeatedly said it was sourced, yet you refuse to read the provided references. Please take the time to click and read, assuming you haven't done so already, and are simply engaging in malicous behavior. Crescent77 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Indicate the source, including page number. You have refused to do so. The addition is unsourced. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If you mean this one, it's unclear what the primary source is. Some say Bruchac. There's a reason her stuff has been removed. It's also inaccurate as it claims it's a word. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finally taking the time to read the reference. I'll take a closer look at what you say concerning Bruchac. If the rest of her stuff has been removed, why not this? As far as the word / morphene discussion, I'm not in agreement that is innacurate to call it a word. As a phonetic rendition, spelling may vary, but it would seem that it was used verbally as a free morpheme, or word, by the Algonquin. Attempts to justify a declaration of truth to the contrary already have the wording in the article sounding quite stilted. Crescent77 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So, to continue here, do you not believe that the phonetic 'squaw' was a free morpheme in Algonquin? Why or why not? Crescent77 (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Morphemes are fragments. The Canadian source cites no sources; others I've spoken to think it's from Bruchac as she seems to be the only person who has argued for it. Either way, the Canadian terminology guide is outdated and not reliable, at least for the lede. We already have plenty of sources that are in agreement; we don't need a non-RS one like that. As stated clearly, the word came into broad usage generations ago. Even if that one hypothesis about Algonquin morphemes actually being a word meaning, "the totality of being female" were true, and one person's theory is insufficient for that, it would only apply to that specific Algonquin morpheme, which is not indicated in the source, nor is the source for the phrase indicated in the Canadian source itself. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Morphemes can be fragments, they can also be words. See difference between free / bound morphemes. Anyways, should we remove the source if it is purely conjecture? Crescent77 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove the source, for all the reasons I've given. For the moment I've moved it down, along with the morphemes only sourced by it, to a brief etymology section. But cutting it altogether would be better. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think your action is more appropriate than total removal. Much of indigenous history relies on a sole source. Were we to use that as justification for removal, much of indigenous history would be erased from these pages. Assigning it to the appropriate category gives it appropriate weight. Crescent77 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

OED Definition

Rather than give prominence to any definition proposed by activists it strikes me that it would be better to reference one or more unbiassed sources such as the OED which report actual usage rather than just unsubstantiated claims being made about a word.

The full (now on-line) OED does indeed provide examples of the word being used in a (mildly in my view) disparaging way, and confirms that it may now be considered offensive. But the OED also confirms and provides examples of the word being commonly used in a perfectly neutral way to mean nothing more than an Indian woman or wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That's misleading. Squaw Valley's report[1] says

Every dictionary referenced for this report (Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, vocabulary.com, Oxford Dictionary, dictionary.com, Urban Dictionary) characterizes the term “squaw” as offensive, disparaging, contemptuous, misogynistic, and/or racist and as an ethnic and sexual slur. :Interestingly, the Oxford Dictionary writes:

“Until relatively recently, the word squaw was used neutrally in anthropological and other contexts to mean a North American Indian woman or wife. With changes in the political climate in the second half of the 20th century, however, the derogatory attitudes

of the past towards North American Indian women mean that the word cannot now be used in any sense without being regarded as offensive."

Yes, it does mention being used as a word for wife, but it's exceedingly clear the the OED sees it as offensive. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the author of the Squaw Valley Report (above) seems to have just made up the supposed dictionary quotes.

The full (now on-line) OED certainly doesn't use any of the words "misogynistic, and/or racist and as an ethnic and sexual slur" nor does the OED contain the long quote attributed to it.

In short what the OED actually says is:

A North American Indian woman or wife. Now generally considered offensive.

(a) Used by people who are not North American Indian as a relatively neutral term, with no specifically disparaging implication.

(b) Used by people who are not North American Indian as a depreciative or disparaging term of abuse or contempt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 

There's no reason to accuse the author of the report to be lying. Lexico is powered by the OUP and says what I wrote above. Once again OUP says [2]

1offensive A North American Indian woman or wife.

1.1 a North American A woman or wife.

Usage

Until relatively recently, the word squaw was used neutrally in anthropological and other contexts to mean a North American Indian woman or wife. With changes in the political climate in the second half of the 20th century, however, the derogatory attitudes of the past towards North American Indian women mean that the word cannot now be used in any sense without being regarded as offensive"

It's the usage that counts. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The ‘Oxford Dictionary’ being quoted is not the Oxford English Dictionary but the Lexico/OUP Dictionary. Even so the author is being disingenuous in that he mischaracterizes and exaggerates what his sources (with the exception of Wikipedia) actually say. The fundamental problem is that the opening paragraph of the Wikipage uses the words of enthusiastic and/or radical writers as if their personal views are the current definition of the word ‘squaw’ rather than using any reputable dictionary definition. These are merely the selected writers’ often-provocative opinions and not objective facts. Logically it would perhaps be better if this was made explicit, and that these elements and ‘current status’ were moved to the end of the page rather than being quoted at the very start. No one of course doubts that in the 21st century the word is often – though surely not ‘universally’ – considered offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction of weasel words and unsourced opinion

The nature of this term as a slur is solidly sourced. Introduction of weasel words to water this down is unsourced opinion. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000 Removing action from a City Council is cancel culture. The citation and the action were entered correctly, without opinion and correctly sourced. Your arbitrary removal of a fact by a City is without merit. Surely would like @CorbieVreccan to weigh in. Shoneinc (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree the original action was with merit and removal seems arbitrary. Unfortunately, this isn't the first case of @CorbieVreccan removing accurately sourced and unbiased information. Perhaps you could refrain from tenditous editing in the future @CorbieVreccan? Thank you. Crescent77 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You aren't making sense, Crescent. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaslighting again Corbie? Crescent77 (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As usual, DARVO from Crescent77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Reminding you once again about WP:NPA if you intend to continue editing here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

DARVO seems to be your modus operandi Corbie. You still haven't addressed the issue at hand, as presented by Shoneinc. Once again, please stop removing unbiased factual sourced material. If you aren't comfortable with that, maybe you need to reconsider your editing here. Crescent77 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shoneinc: I didn't realize your addition had been removed in the revert. Crescent's continual insistence on insults rather than specifying what the issue was did not clarify the matter. My apologies, Shoneinc; I have restored the content. Crescent, as long as you WP:ABF and treat the 'pedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND, your efforts will continue to be disruptive rather than helpful. This could have been easily resolved with a simple diff or explanation. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix Corbie. Once again, had you taken the time to read, rather than operate on WP:BATTLEGROUND instinct, this would have been a non-issue. And if you followed your own advice and refrained from WP:NPA and DARVO, the whole collaborative editing process would go much smoother. Anyways, thank you for your time and work here. Crescent77 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I see you're weasel wording sources again Corbie... Crescent77 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Redoing the placenames and renaming section to be a table?

I was trying to read through this and this section is kinda confusingly arranged, and I was thinking the information about the placenames, their locations, and their status, could be much better conveyed through a table. Could maybe colour one column based on if the place has been renamed yet or not, instead of having a weird seperate list at the bottom. Would also make it sortable by area, geographical feature type, and current status. I wanted to post here before going ahead though as I don't know how to go about this really. SomerIsland (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The readability of the section could definitely be improved. I'm not sure I'm accurately envisioning what you have in mind here, but to the extent I get what you have in mind, I think it would probably be an improvement. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Lede vs body: contradiction

In the lede, there are well-sourced claims that the term “squaw” never occurs as a word per se in American languages, but represents a fragment of other words. In the body, two languages are cited as having the word.  ??? Clean Copy^talk 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There are some out of date, colonial sources still in the article, last I checked. This should be updated. I'll try to give it a look later. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing gatekeeping has led to these inconsistencies. "Out of date" "colonial" sources are still sources; and important ones at that, useful for documenting the out of date colonial usage of a word. Crescent77 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Nitpicking about how it's not "a word per se" but rather merely "a fragment of other words" communicates mainly a profound ignorance of how Polysynthetic languages work. 93.103.223.236 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Tide of vandalism from IPs and new accounts

Due to a deluge of IP and new sockpuppet vandalism, I have semi-protected the page. As I also edit here, if anyone wants to contest this or request a change in protection level, feel free to ping me or take it up at WP:RFPP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I had noticed the problem too. Meters (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Claims of misogyny, bigotry, racism

I don't think the page should lead with these assertions, the etymology doesn't seem to support these modern opinions, and not everyone will properly investigate. It would be better imho to not cater to these unrealistic interpertations. By the same logic "woman" is offensive to English speakers... or Ella is offensive to Spanish speakers. The notion that non-native speakers should be given different connotation is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:78B0:5960:B100:DFEF:30C:856F (talk)

Agree. "Squaw ("woman"), squawsuck ("women"), keegsquaw ("virgin or maid"), segousquaw ("widower"), and squausnit ("woman's god")"

not seeing the misogyny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk • contribs) 16:39, September 14, 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Try reading the article and the cited sources. The derogatory connotations are extensively sourced. Meters (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree as well, the examples given by the IP are in one, outdated source, by someone who did not even speak the language he was allegedly documenting. I don't think that book was ever WP:RS and probably shouldn't even be included. To try to use that to outweigh all the reliable sources is cherrypicking and undue weight. The reliable sources thoroughly source the lede and article content we have now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The etymology is largely irrelevant to the modern use of it as a slur in English. Though it is fascinating to see people arguing about this since its pretty universally understood to be a slur in my area, and somebody asking for a source on this would be laughed at. SomerIsland (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. First of all, the words presented above are Roger Williams take on the Narragansett language, not the actual language as spoken. Secondly, the term is most assuredly a slur and understood to be so. Indigenous girl (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A few more recent sources

Sorry about my last post. These.[3][4][https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/calling-squaw-a-racist-term-interior-secretary-haaland-calls-for-it-to-be-removed-from-geographic-place-names}. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Redundant sections added

@Dylanchandley: The sections you inserted, while having some usable content, are largely redundant with the current content. Instead of dropping in redundant sections, which make the article less readable, please work in collaboration with other editors to integrate new content and sourcing into the existing text. It's fine if this results is some restructuring, but we shouldn't have repeated sections that say basically the same things. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)