Talk:Redskin

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.158.216.245 (talk) at 20:07, 7 July 2020 (→‎Are "redskins" red-skinned?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Indigenous terminology

There is an ongoing debate regarding the correct terminology to use when referring to the indigenous peoples of the land now called the Americas. Every WP article cannot be cleansed based upon what some editors define as inappropriate terminology, since the sources used may have an entirely different terminology. When describing something in the past, is using modern terminology a misrepresentation? If a cited source uses inappropriate terminology, can it be "cleansed"?FriendlyFred (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "When describing something in the past, is using modern terminology a misrepresentation?" No, using the term "African American" or "Black" instead of "Negro" when describing the past is still accurate and correct. However, unlike "Indian" the term "Negro" is more outdated. You're referring to "Indian" vs. "Native American" right..? Using the term "Native American" instead of "Indian" and "American Indian" can avoid confusion with Indians from India and Indian Americans (Americans with heritage from India). Prcc27 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that you were referring to "American Indian" vs. "Indian"... "American" would clarify who you're talking about so unless there's some context clues in the paragraph that Native Americans are being referred to instead of Indians (from India), "American Indian" or "Native American" might be a better term to use. Prcc27 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring quoting or closely paraphrasing references, where using new terms alters the meaning of the source.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pejoration

Twice in this article we say the word "underwent a process of pejoration," but we don't really cite an article that says this. The link provided is to the Oxford dictionary, which does say it "is now dated or offensive," but I don't think that is really enough. Essentially, this "process of pejoration" is assumed from that statement, and thus we are doing original research. Fnordware (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford definition states: "The term originally had a neutral meaning and was used by American Indians themselves, but it eventually acquired an unfavorable connotation." The wiktionary definition of pejoration (linguistics) is "The process by which a word acquires a more negative meaning over time." Not original research, perhaps failure to cite the references fully enough. FriendlyFred (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying by coordinating content of related articles

Since I edit this article and two others with related content, I am making an effort to simplify things for me and the readers by placing detailed content in the appropriate place and replacing details with wikilinks.

For example:

Comparison of the R-Word to the N-Word

An anonymous comment was made on my talk page which I deleted, but will answer here. The statement appeared to be that any comparison between redskin and nigger is false because no form of the latter has ever been used by a sports team. However the point of comparison is that both words are contemptuous or offensive references to people, yet one is freely used while the other is not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good source?

how about this writing? 'How Indians Got To Be Red'--Blaua (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title screams out to me "don't trust this" but at just a first glance it is a scholarly work and the title is meant to be ironic. I only just skimmed to first part, so I have no opinion on the full question of whether to use it as a source. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it is in fact a scholarly work and quite nuanced and detailed in its approach to the question. Meets RS unless anyone else sees something I am not at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

route the savages?

I left this alone because it was in quotes, but could we check this please, as I think that surely it should be "rout'. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, confirmed.[1] It's on p.98 (where that links to), the right column, 4th para (~ half way down). Bromley86 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it is. Can we add a '"(sic)" to indicate we've noted the misspelling but it's in the original? Or perhaps find another quote, hmm, which is probably a lot of trouble for a relatively minor issue, even if it does twang my OCD. I'll take a look for one myself perhaps, but what do people think of the sic idea? Because, honest, they must have meant "rout"; it makes much more sense than "route". Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinruby. I was going to look into whether people sic archaic spellings, but I'm not sure that'll be necessary. In this case, we don't need to include the quote fragment that has "route" in it, as it's just preamble that we can paraphrase. I'll put that through. Bromley86 (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that works for me and prevents us from having to worry about whether it was a misspelling or an archaic spelling or what. I am simply saying that a lot hinges on this one quote and such errors are distracting and raise doubts that may be unnecessary. Elinruby (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tout les peaux rouges

this is an error in grammar and makes me question the source. Should be 'tous' in this context. 'Tout' is used to refer to a whole object, as in a cake or a boat. If the intended meaning is that there are many and all of them are the subject, then it should be 'tous.' Granted it was 1769, but... Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The translations were, I believe, made by half-bloods: “The Speeches made at the Ilinois & at other places are generally taken by French Interpreters, who are men of very little learning, this will account for the badness of the French & the errors or Orthography". Johnson, William 1921–1965 The Papers of Sir William Johnson. 14 vols. Albany, NY: The University of the State of New York [2] Bromley86 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The translation of "peaux rouges" as "redskins" is a direct quote from the source, so it should remain? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial thought too, but our wording is currently "which translates as", rather than "which was translated as", so I can see Elinruby's point. I imagine we should say "which was translated as" if we want to use redskin. Both work for me. Bromley86 (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily this would be a good place for an explanatory footnote, but WP does not seem to use them much.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, perhaps the correction of the translation inadvertently undercuts Goddard's argument that these were the first uses of the combined term redskin rather that the expression "red skin".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, correcting to translation then. Bromley86 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making it "was translated" works for me as far as "tout" vs "tous"; it's a small point but I don't like to validate even small errors. Meanwhile, I do feel that peaux rouges does not exactly correspond to redskin, but I am content to let that hang fire unless or until I am able to propose a solution, since it's a fairly central point and I haven't done enough research to question what is definitely a reliable source under wikipedia rules. I may come back to it. But this is also me, noting the possible issue with Goddard's analysis and when I comes to French my credentials are probably better than his ;) but credentials of editors of course are not a factor in wikipedia discussion of issues. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Peau" is feminine. The determiner could never be "tous." 2600:8800:1E80:4F50:E009:6CC7:1E01:F2B9 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Placed a summary of the Darren Reid content in the origins section since that is what he addresses, removed excess detail from the Evolved meaning section.

Removed a second "However" that seemed unnecessary and awkward. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having added some uncontroversial content on usage in newspapers to the "Later use" section, I see no reason not to combine "Evolving meaning" and "Later use" into a single section, perhaps entitled "Pejoration" again. Some of the items may not currently be in chronological order. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post dispute resolution

Added subsections and expanded opening paragraph of Origins section to summarize more fully. Also applied naming conventions for refs; "Author.year" to Goddard, needs to be applied to the entire article. Parameters should also be in quotes, although not required. The usefulness of naming refs also requires the use of the rp template for page numbers.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV Resolution

After four months of persistent discussion that produced little agreement (see archive 2), I am being BOLD in assuming that two weeks with no activity indicates a return to normal editing, so I have restored content that provides a minimal balance of differing views on this controversial topic, and removed the POV tag I placed in May.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I have done some rewording and reorganizing; and added content from a book by Nancy Shoemaker. Currently in the process of converting the list of high schools into examples of how and why changes are being made.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing the sources on high schools, there is little to support any content directly relevant to the topic of this article, the meaning and usage of the term redskin. Only two aspects of the Washington Redskins controversy, opinion polls and the trademark decision, address this topic. University and high schools decisions will be removed unless they are similar.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I was otherwise occupied by the flu in March, a number of significant changes were made by User:Dbachmann, some of which seem to go beyond the cited sources into over-generalization and speculation. Most troubling is the removal of an entire section reflecting the Native American point of view on the topic, reducing it to a single sentence:

"Some Native American activists in the 21st century, in contradiction of the etymological evidence discussed above, assert that "redskin" refers directly to the bloody, red scalp or other body part collected for bounty."

This is inaccurate, since the Native American leaders have been making their case for decades, and the wording comparing the evidence from different sources is WP:synth.

I am open to discussion before making corrections.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student edits

While any article may be improved, and I generally appreciate any effort to do so, this controversial topic requires an understanding of both the subject matter and the WP editing guidelines that is not reflected in the recent edits by User:Jkappss, which I have reverted. There should be discussion here before any additional edits are made.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redskin (ethnic slur)

Why is this article titled Redskin (slang), instead of what seems fairly obviously more justified Redskin (ethnic slur)? Was the title of (slang) ever justified? [3] [4] [5] [6] Eljamoquio (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I am now the major contributor, I did not originate the article or select its name. A case might be made for changing the name to simply "Redskin" which would coincide with the articles about other generally recognized racial slurs, such as nigger, kike, and spic; none of which include ((racial slur)) in their title. All racial slurs are also slang, since they are not standard terms, but used by individuals to signal the inclusion or exclusion of others. Perhaps the original article was titled to differentiate it from merely descriptive uses, such as redskin peanuts or potatoes. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's both slang and a slur. The primary usage, originally, was (and is) slang, and is not intended as a slur, as far as I can tell from reading the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same is said about nigger, which began as a slang reference to black skin but quickly became a slur. The real question is whether to make this the default target of a search for "redskin" rather than the current disambiguation page. The assumption that the meaning of the term is unambiguously a slur might be a violation of NPOV given the number of sports fans who disagree. Since I live in DC, I see or hear and read the term constantly, and am in the minority who react to it as a slur. Googling "redskin" results in mainly references to the sports team, while a search in my university library results in many of the references used in the controversy articles. Do academics or common usage rule on WP in questions of NPOV? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could involve WP:NDN in the discussion, if we want more eyes. The projects on inherent bias and such are basically dead. I have redirected the Euro term Red Indian to this page as, while I know there are people who used to use it in a neutral way, it really is a slur now, the way "Redskin" is. (The page had redirected simply to one of the Native pages.) Right now Nigger is just at the word, no qualifier in the page name. I think that the issue here is less about slur vs slang, but that the sports team page gets more hits, so will always be seen as the dominant page unless and until they change the team name. We could propose a page move for this, however, to Redskin (ethnic slur). As long as we have plenty of sources citing it as a slur, that might work. I can make it a redirect now, and see how that goes. If there's support for a page move we can just move over the redirect. With controversy around it, if you want to move the page it should probably be suggested via the formal process, not just informally here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made the redirect. Before proposing the page move, I would see if you can rewrite the lede to meet the criteria for that page name, with ample sourcing in the lede itself that documents its use as a slur. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a page move, I would vote to simple rename this article to Redskin, and move the current content of that page to Redskin (disambiguation). The article would begin with a standard disclaimer: This article is about the term redskin; for other uses see Redskin (disambiguation). The current opening sentence clearly established the current meaning as derogatory with reference to dictionary definitions. However, I do not think it is a slur in the same sense as the other racial terms cited, which have no alternative use. An article entitle Redskin (ethnic slur) would be WP:SYNTH since it states a conclusion while the article gives a more complex and balanced view.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the page move request.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first step in this process would be to rename Redskin --> Redskin (disambiguation), reversing what was done a number of years ago. A question would be whether to continue to have a Redskins (disambiguation) page or combine them. Anyone searching for the plural form is likely looking for information about the football team, so I have no objections to "Redskins" redirecting to Washington Redskins, with the appropriate hatnote.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited Redskin in preparation for its renaming.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 May 2019

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: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redskin (slang) → Redskin – The term in its singular form has no alternative meaning that needs to be differentiated by the addition of the (slang) qualifier. This renaming brings it into agreement with the titles of articles on other racial pejoratives that are also slang. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Redskin (ethnic slur) above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: This seems to clearly be the primary meaning of the term – especially in the singular form. No disambiguation is needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - see pageviews. (Also avoids POV issue discussed in section above.) Station1 (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. The common meaning of singular "redskin" is, of course, this term. The theoretical fact that plural "Redskins" often means something else entirely is irrelevant here. O.N.R. (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Redskins currently redirects to Redskin. I think it's more likely than not that someone who types in "redskin" into the search box is looking for something other than the article on the slang term. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary meaning. Also move Redskins (disambiguation)→Redskin (disambiguation). There is significant overlap between the singular and plural DAB pages, and they should just simply be merged per WP:DABCOMBINE (Redskins (disambiguation) has the oldest edit history). -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Page Redskin is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated above: part of the move process would be to redo the redirect/disambig pages associated with redskin/redskins and adding needed hatnotes to the articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and in support of majority. Barca (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom and given that the current title doesn't convey the ethnic slur element. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Consensus being reached, I have requested technical assistance for this move.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2019 (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.

Cleanup of "Red skin" vs. "Redskin"

These two terms need disambiguation individually, but do not need to overlap given that the former refers exclusively to human skin conditions that result in reddening of the skin, while the latter refers to cultural association of "red" to people. The hatnote on this page need only include the DAB page for the topic of this article, not all possible terms, which I have added to Redskin (disambiguation).--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are "redskins" red-skinned?

I accessed this article to find out whether Native Americans indeed have red or reddish skin. Unfortunately this article does not trouble itself to answer that mundane question and instead indulges in political waffling.

The few Native Americans that I have met (Pacific coastal Canada and Pacific coastal USA) did not have a red skin colour, but perhaps there are regional differences? I would be grateful if someone could make a simple, referenced statement near the beginning of the article on Native American skin colour. 86.158.216.245 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redskin&oldid=966561603"