This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Redskin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Redskin has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 22, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
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)
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)
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:
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)
how about this writing? 'How Indians Got To Be Red'-- Blaua ( talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Peau" is feminine. The determiner could never be "tous." 2600:8800:1E80:4F50:E009:6CC7:1E01:F2B9 ( talk) 08:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have gone ahead and made the page move request.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
See Redskin (ethnic slur) above.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ PeterM34:, you are repeatedly removing sourced content. I have left a notice on your page explaining the issues with this. The content you were removing was already well-sourced in the body of the article, and is now also sourced in the lede. Stop this POV push. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I removed no links. My link was removed.
As a Native American I am perturbed someone else would prose mixed opinion as fact. Plus the same information is shared below on the same page.
Other clean-up items of grammar and incorrect verb tense were continuously removed out of pettiness.
Furthermore, if they're going to state many Native Americans were against it for decades, then they must also accept polls showed a high percentage was not.
Agreed? PeterM34 ( talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@ PeterM34:
Now that the controversy has entered a different stage (but certainly not gone away), some revisions to this article are in order. Perhaps there was always too much about the DC team, but the subsections on the opinion polls and trademark dispute could be reduced by moving content from here to the linked articles on those topics.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 18:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This page currently has discussions that are both older and newer than the content in Archive 2. Although the archive template says Do Not Modify the talk page guidelines seem to allow for correction of errors such as this.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Bmf 051: The last paragraph in the opening section is now overlinked, having two links to the same target article. The first is an intentional link to a redirect page, something that I have always assumed should also be avoided. The information being summarized is that what once had been the most prominent usage of the term "redskin" has been changed, the meaning of the term (the topic of the article) being the reason for that change. The topic is about words, not sports teams, so the old name is a distinct entity and should no longer link to the team article in this context. Rewording is needed, but the information requires more than one sentence to convey, so I do not think duplication of links assists the understanding of a reader entirely unfamiliar with the topic but may in fact be confusing.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I am trying Transclusion as an alternative to maintaining similar content is several articles.
I maintain the list of secondary school mascots, the redskins section is transcluded into this and another article. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
First, I appreciate your taking the time to respond fully. Regarding your points:
-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Having been complete and stable for a number of years, I think it is time for this.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Shushugah ( talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
While reviewing the article, I saw several instances where the sources did not match the claims made inside the Wiki text. I boldly removed one case, where the N word was purportedly referenced in the Merriam Webster dictionary in comparing redskin. It wasn't, so I removed it entirely in this edit, but there are other cases I found, where there's a misunderstanding of the sourced text, and missing contextualization. In Redskin#Origins of redskin in English it correctly notes that Goddard considered the 1699 claim to be spurious, only for the next paragraph to claim, that he 'admits it cannot be verified' which is a misinterpretation of the source. Rather, he does provide claims that redskin usage was first used in 1812. Using same source it should be noted earlier that activist Suzan Shown Harjo critiqued Goddard, and using a separate source, should be noted that Sociologist James V. Fenelon considered Goddard's work to be 'poor scholarship' (needs to be clearer which article too). We don't need to determine who's right, but we do need to have a WP:DUE prose that includes all the arguments. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I know that was a long review, but with proper verification/removal of low quality sourcing, this article has potential to reach GA status. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
WriterArtistDC I’m really loving the progress and updates! I had stressful week so didn’t get a proper chance to re-review, but I hope to do that by this weekend and happy to continue working with you to the finish line. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Redskin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Redskin has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 22, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
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)
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)
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:
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)
how about this writing? 'How Indians Got To Be Red'-- Blaua ( talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Peau" is feminine. The determiner could never be "tous." 2600:8800:1E80:4F50:E009:6CC7:1E01:F2B9 ( talk) 08:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have gone ahead and made the page move request.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
See Redskin (ethnic slur) above.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ PeterM34:, you are repeatedly removing sourced content. I have left a notice on your page explaining the issues with this. The content you were removing was already well-sourced in the body of the article, and is now also sourced in the lede. Stop this POV push. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I removed no links. My link was removed.
As a Native American I am perturbed someone else would prose mixed opinion as fact. Plus the same information is shared below on the same page.
Other clean-up items of grammar and incorrect verb tense were continuously removed out of pettiness.
Furthermore, if they're going to state many Native Americans were against it for decades, then they must also accept polls showed a high percentage was not.
Agreed? PeterM34 ( talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@ PeterM34:
Now that the controversy has entered a different stage (but certainly not gone away), some revisions to this article are in order. Perhaps there was always too much about the DC team, but the subsections on the opinion polls and trademark dispute could be reduced by moving content from here to the linked articles on those topics.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 18:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This page currently has discussions that are both older and newer than the content in Archive 2. Although the archive template says Do Not Modify the talk page guidelines seem to allow for correction of errors such as this.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Bmf 051: The last paragraph in the opening section is now overlinked, having two links to the same target article. The first is an intentional link to a redirect page, something that I have always assumed should also be avoided. The information being summarized is that what once had been the most prominent usage of the term "redskin" has been changed, the meaning of the term (the topic of the article) being the reason for that change. The topic is about words, not sports teams, so the old name is a distinct entity and should no longer link to the team article in this context. Rewording is needed, but the information requires more than one sentence to convey, so I do not think duplication of links assists the understanding of a reader entirely unfamiliar with the topic but may in fact be confusing.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I am trying Transclusion as an alternative to maintaining similar content is several articles.
I maintain the list of secondary school mascots, the redskins section is transcluded into this and another article. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
First, I appreciate your taking the time to respond fully. Regarding your points:
-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Having been complete and stable for a number of years, I think it is time for this.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Shushugah ( talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
While reviewing the article, I saw several instances where the sources did not match the claims made inside the Wiki text. I boldly removed one case, where the N word was purportedly referenced in the Merriam Webster dictionary in comparing redskin. It wasn't, so I removed it entirely in this edit, but there are other cases I found, where there's a misunderstanding of the sourced text, and missing contextualization. In Redskin#Origins of redskin in English it correctly notes that Goddard considered the 1699 claim to be spurious, only for the next paragraph to claim, that he 'admits it cannot be verified' which is a misinterpretation of the source. Rather, he does provide claims that redskin usage was first used in 1812. Using same source it should be noted earlier that activist Suzan Shown Harjo critiqued Goddard, and using a separate source, should be noted that Sociologist James V. Fenelon considered Goddard's work to be 'poor scholarship' (needs to be clearer which article too). We don't need to determine who's right, but we do need to have a WP:DUE prose that includes all the arguments. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I know that was a long review, but with proper verification/removal of low quality sourcing, this article has potential to reach GA status. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
WriterArtistDC I’m really loving the progress and updates! I had stressful week so didn’t get a proper chance to re-review, but I hope to do that by this weekend and happy to continue working with you to the finish line. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
References