Talk:Redskin/Archive 2

Revised lead section

Yes, a lead section is supposed to summarize an article. Is scalping and important detail? Many Native American scholars and rights groups think so.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead & scalping

I'd removed the statement "Use of the term is connected to the history of bounties being paid for Indian scalps." from the Lead.(diff). It's been added back in with attribution. Great, that addresses the fact that the source is biased, but it doesn't argue for it's inclusion in the Lead. Summarise the Body. It's not a significant part of the Body, so it doesn't get summarised in the Lead, surely? Bromley86 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion of the "bias" of a PhD historian as the citation for a statement on scalping in the lead section has no weight. An equally reliable published source, with and author of similar academic standing, may be used to rebut or reword to indicate the controversy, but not delete content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my opinion does have weight: we should always evaluate sources. There will be plenty of qualified people who have misrepresented things, and someone who accuses a woman of murder in that situation is hardly fair and impartial. That's beside the point though. Again, why is this minor point in the Lead? Bromley86 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Rm again from Lead following rewrite of the Body. Which now includes the refutation of the suggested etymology. Bromley86 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And now I see you're being obstructive over my removal of a cite used to support a point when it does no such thing. Please do not add it back. Bromley86 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently there was confusion due to placing two cites at the end of a long sentence when one applies to redskins in relation to bounties, while the second applies to redskins and scalping.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't confusion, that was you repeatedly reverting without edit summaries. Now we're talking, why is it in there? There's nothing wrong with putting cites in for causes withing a sentence, but it's simply not necessary in this case as the bounties point is not sufficiently controversial to require separate confirmation, and the cite at the end of the sentence covers that too. What we do need is more cites for the bloody scalps/bodies point. Bromley86 (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There is confusion between the distinct issues regarding the paying of bounties, the use of scalps as proof of kills, and the use of the term redskins during the long period during which Native Americans were victims of an American holocaust. Much of the article could use rewording and clarification to deal with this confusion, but not the wholesale deletion of the recent edits, so I have reverted them entirely. Too much was removed, particularly from the lead, which was no longer a summary of the article. The statement that Goddard "refutes" claims regarding scalping is incorrect, and does not warrant the removal of cited content that presents the scholarly dispute. There are many sources that support the use of "redskin" as a pejorative by those engaged in or advocating slaughter, while the neutral term "Indian" was used much more generally. Goddard agrees, but specifically denies the claim by Harjo regarding redskin=scalp. This is to be expected since Goddard was a paid consultant to the Washington Redskins during the first trademark trial in which Harjo was the lead petitioner. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You're being obstructive again. Which POV do you think I'm pushing?

Regarding Goddard, he specifically refutes the claim that redskin is related to bloody bodies or scalps. None of the stuff that I removed that dealt with bounties established that the redskin related to scalps or bodies, so it was all irrelevant to this particular etymology. Bromley86 (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, I think I'm beginning to understand your issue. I was concerned with the etymology/origin of the word redskin, which the balance of evidence strongly suggests has nothing to do with scalping. The article currently reflects this:

A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American, or perhaps the bloody bodies left behind. Goddard refutes this, pointing to the lack of evidence for the claim.

However, the section on Origin and meaning also covers the process of change from a term used by Indians to describe themselves, to a term used in a pejorative sense. Its use at a time when scalps were regularly being collected may have contributed to this, yet the article no longer draws attention to this. Would that accurately summarise the issue? Bromley86 (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a scholarly source for the link between the use of the word redskin at the time of bounties on Indians and the pejoratisation of the word. No luck so far, so I'm leaning towards mentioning it as a false claim, supported by this. Not sure it's necessary. If the false meme of bloody scalps is a really big deal, perhaps we need to emphasise this, but the article currently deals with it in a neutral fashion. Bromley86 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• See: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Redskin (slang)

While we are waiting

It is likely that third-party dispute resolution will not be granted (if it comes at all) because there has been insufficient effort to resolve the dispute here. This is mainly due to my decision to ignore anyone who, rather than assuming good faith, immediately resorts to insulting and condescending characterizations (e.g. "obstructive" above, and "insane" and other insults on the NPOV noticeboard). Without mutual respect, discussion is pointless. My lack of respect has been expressed by a refusal to address Bromley86 directly, since I do not expect an equally respectful response.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

AGF! Perhaps if you tried that yourself, and tried to talk things out instead of dragging this into a spurious NPOV case, then you'd get a different result? I must say, I find it far more likely that it is your NPOV that is compromised on this matter, but I'd have dealt with that in the normal way, by inviting in a 3O. As, indeed, I offered to. If you want to close the NPOV, I'll set that up. Bromley86 (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "obstructive" comment refers to you reverting this removal. As explained, the cite does not support the point made: you can confirm this for yourself by reading the cite. The fact that you just keep adding it back *is* obstructive. I'm sorry you feel that's condescending, but there's not a lot I can do about that.

It's a good microcosm of the problem we're having. If you would care to show why you believe it supports the point, I can show you why it doesn't. We might be able to make some progress generally if we can make some progress specifically. Bromley86 (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have previously explained each of my edits, so I do not feel the need to repeat myself to someone who appears to reject any view not their own and assume a stance of superiority.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you have not. But we are where we are. Incidentally, I do not reject any view not my own, but I am able to read, which is why I know that cite does not support the point you added it back to. This is why I call your edits obstructive. As is you refusal to talk to someone, and your attempt to block editing on this article. It's been 2 weeks now, which is long enough for me to indulge you. I'll put through the changes again. If you choose to revert, I'll get in a WP:3O and we'll take it from there.

Regarding the specifics of the Taylor reference.[1] This is the statement it was used to support: "A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American." It fails because there are no mentions of "blood" or "scalp", which is the core claim of the statement. You then reverted the removal, without edit summaries, 3 times, despite this being explained to you, and being asked to explain yourself on Talk. This is not acceptable. What's worse is that you seem to think that Taylor is quoted in that piece as saying that Redskin originates from the bounty trade. He is not. He may say it in a book, or in another piece, but he doesn't in that piece. Maybe that's due to poor reporting, or maybe he didn't say it at that meeting; that's not for me to decide. Bromley86 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am only posting to say I tried. I went to the ANI noticeboard, were it was inexplicably dismissed. I am supposed to continue trying to work towards resolution with someone who only knows how to repeat their own POV while dismissing mine, with insults and condescension repeated when pointed out? The NPOV tag can remain open until others join the discussion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, try arguing the facts, starting with the Taylor case above. If you can't do that, then all you're doing is wikilawyering instead of discussing content. That will eventually get you excluded from editing the article, IMO. I'd also suggest that you take some of your own advice regarding insults, and indeed the advice given to you in that ANI.

Just to be clear, as you've raised it in the ANI. I've called some of your edits obstructive when they've been just that; edits where you've refused to engage in discussion and have instead insisted on reverting, despite being informed that there was a problem with the sourcing in the version you've reverted to. And the "insane" comment was in response to your suggestion that the Smithsonian was a problematic source at the same time as you ignored the problems with using vague, and not (as far as I can see) universally-held oral traditions. I suggest that we not rehash this here though; it'll get confusing enough. If you want to talk further about it, you can use my Talk page.

Now that we have had some senior, if not admin, input on the matter, I'll set up the 3O. Might not manage it tonight, but I'll sort it out in the next 24 hours. Bromley86 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to restate the facts regarding the Taylor reference, it was used to support the first part of the sentence "A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians..." not the second part about scalping . The quote from the article (now deleted) could not be more clear: "The term "redskin" comes from the Colonial era, when some Native Americans were killed in clashes with newly arrived settlers and others were hunted down for a bounty." This opinion by an anthropologist directly contradicts Goddard's "benign origin" opinion, but I am not going to do the OR needed to say one academic "refutes" another; but instead seek to maintain NPOV by allowing both to be included in the article with attribution. My reading of the proper use of various noticeboards is that 3O is for minor content disputes not involving editor conduct, which is why I posted to ANI instead.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to say it more clearly than I have, but it is not a quote. The context in the source means we cannot even attribute the sentiment to him. Bromley86 (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Its just as clear to me that anyone reading a news report on a talk given by a professor that begins with this sentence would attribute it to him. Sloppy journalism not to use quotes? Picking nits. But as it happens, Taylor does say something similar in his book.

Taylor, Michael (2013). Contesting Constructed Indian-ness: The Intersection of the Frontier, Masculinity, and Whiteness in Native American Mascot Representations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-7391-7864-5. Retrieved 29 May 2017. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, doesn't look to me like he's saying that. He's saying that's what the activist believes. And you say "picking nits", I says "factual accuracy in an encyclopaedia". Bromley86 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A WP fact is something published in a reliable source, in this case the online version of a local newspaper.

The term "redskin" comes from the Colonial era, when some Native Americans were killed in clashes with newly arrived settlers and others were hunted down for a bounty.

Michael Taylor, a Seneca Indian and an assistant professor at Colgate University, discussed the troubled past and continuing challenges faced by Native Americans during an address Tuesday at Gibble Auditorium at Elizabethtown College.

Would any reasonable person not understand that the opening sentence came from the address being reported upon? This is a disagreement about punctuation, not facts. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I also see a double standard in the determination of encyclopedia-worthiness; the work of one author, Ives Goddard are to be taken at face value but the work of another, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing the academic value of those two pieces (Dunbar-Ortiz and Goddard) and deciding that they're equivalent? He provides evidence in his 20 page piece published in a journal (including 4 pages of references), she provides a statement ("The settlers gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp hunts: redskins." That's literally it!) in her one page piece in a blog. Bromley86 (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I am comparing Goddard's article to Dunbar-Ortiz's book, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, which I have read.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Unless she talks about redskin etymology in detail; that would be interesting. Bromley86 (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your complaint was that the "blog post" was too short and lacked references, that it is an excerpt from a well-researched book remedies that objection.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. What does she say in the book - if it's the same as the blog, then it's of little value, other than as an opinion. What is her support for the statement? Bromley86 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Found another source that quotes the excerpt, including reference markers. No reference follows the relevant sentence from the excerpt. Not conclusive; there may be a whole section discussing it elsewhere in the book. However, that particular sentence currently looks like it's her unsupported opinion. Bromley86 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, are you proposing that every citation on WP, including what is stated by a PhD in a published book or article, be vetted by the editors of the article rather than being paraphrased/summarized? (With attribution if what is said is not generally agreed upon by the academic discipline.) What could be the basis for such vetting except another RS, as I stated in my reversion of your first edit? It becomes very muddy when the sources are from different disciplines with different points of view. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am proposing that we read and evaluate the sources used, although we then obviously paraphrase and summarise. You are making an appeal to authority: because she's a Ph.D. and we have an excerpt that says "The settlers gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp hunts: redskins.", then that carries academic weight. However, it clearly doesn't. It's an opinion, unless she demonstrates how she determined that to be the case. I would suggest that this is pretty basic, and uncontroversial, and would actually make it a primary statement (in an otherwise-secondary source). As an opinion, it is further better if it is reported on (or referenced to) by a RS to establish weight, although I'd suggest that it's fine for inclusion here in the context of a quick explanation of whether it's scalps or bodies. If everyone said "scalps", and assuming there's nothing else relevant to this in the book, then I'd drop it entirely for definite secondary sources that report the situation, like Slate/ICT. Bromley86 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not making an appeal to authority, I am accepting that anything published by someone with academic credentials must be read, summarized, and paraphrased but not "evaluated" by WP editors. The weight given to any one source is relative to all other available sources, and not at all about any one editor's opinion. Obviously reading and paraphrasing requires background knowledge, so I would never presume to edit an article on physics or higher math; I stick to the social sciences and fine art, for which I have an academic background. I am comfortable claiming to understand all the sources in the article well enough to summarize them, but I would never second-guess a PhD on whether their opinion carries academic weight even when there is an equally qualified academic source with a contrary opinion. I would remain neutral, summarize both with attribution, and note that the topic is controversial.

It all depends upon the nature of the topic. If the topic is one with a well-defined and established consensus within a discipline, then the appropriate weight given to contrary opinions might be slight, perhaps even none at all. There may be PhD's in biology who are creationists, but their opinion need not be included in the main article on biological evolution. The situation for this article is at the other extreme, the origin and current meaning of the word "redskin" does not fall within the domain of any one discipline, and there are multiple competing opinions. Perhaps this is one of the unspoken assumptions that is preventing agreement: the topic is a word, so for you only a linguist's opinion has weight unless countered with another equally detailed etymological analysis.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You say "allocate weight", I say "evaluate": potato, potato (that makes more sense when spoken).

While having some knowledge of the subject might be useful for article creation, and is certainly useful in technical articles, it's not necessary for copy editing, source checking, etc. I understand English good, and I have a very good brain. So I'm perfectly competent to determine whether a statement made by a Ph.D. carries weight: currently Dunbar-Ortiz's appears to not carry weight, because it appears not to be supported by any research, her own or others. When I get a look at her book, that may change.

And, again, you seem to be assigning equal weight to a single, unsupported, sentence in a book as you do to a journal article that looks at the issue in extensive detail. Weight doesn't work that way. Not everything that was ever published by someone with credentials will achieve enough weight to make it into an article: articles would be a little unwieldy if that was the case.

Regarding whether I only allocate weight to a linguist's opinion or not. That's not the case: I look for people who fairly investigate the matter, whether they're linguists, journos, or even activists. I will naturally be more wary of someone who has a political agenda to advance, but that doesn't mean I'll discount their work. What I'll generally do, in those situations, is try to find a bunch of neutral observers, such as journalists, who have reviewed their work, and I'll be led by their opinions, and what their articles say. Thus my reference to Slate and ICT (although I believe both of them mention Harjo rather than Dunbar-Ortiz). The bare minimum though is that there's been some research performed, otherwise it is unsupported opinion and carries zero weight. Note that this is not an argument for the exclusion of the "bloody scalps" origin, as it's clearly been documented as a phenomena in the news, even if research appears to be lacking. Bromley86 (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, I've read Chapter 4 of Dunbar-Ortiz's book, from whence that quote came. There's no support for it. Further, there's no suggestion from the rest of the chapter, when it deals with bounty hunting, that it would be bodies and not scalps. So, we remove the reference to Dunbar-Ortiz that I'd included, to support bodies, as she doesn't really make that point. She's just using hyperbole to generate a picture in the mind of the reader. Bromley86 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

As I say below in my response to the 3O, supported by the NPOV guidelines, any quote taken from a RS must be stated without editorial bias. Dunbar-Ortiz, having a PhD in History from UCLA, cannot be taken as anything less than a reliable source, and her scholarship cannot be questioned by a single editor. Having done a great deal of research related to this article, I do not question it, but think she represents a perspective that is valid and important in the context of the other sources in the article to provide complete coverage of the topic. This includes having that perspective included in the lead section. As a controversial topic with competing reliable sources, there is no basis for declaring any of the perspectives superior to any of the others. This is the reason I chose posting to the NPOV noticeboard as the appropriate route for resolution.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. We'll have to wait for someone to come and break the deadlock on what to me is a noddy issue - AFAIK, she's not been referred to in any secondary sources that discuss the situation, and in her book she presents no research or considered opinion on this subject. BTW, given your initial reaction to my questioning of her impartiality, I have to ask: do you personally know Dunbar-Ortiz? Bromley86 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not see much "trying" in your steadfast opposition to maintaining what to me is the bedrock of editorial neutrality. I am not familiar with the allusion to "noddy" but if it means trivial; the lack of a NPOV is the opposite.

While being an American, born in Washington, DC, I have as little personal connection to this topic as you claim. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would fail to give Dunbar-Ortiz the respect she deserves.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? I've gone out of my way to access her book. This is why I can say it is worthless in the context of this article. I'm still bemused as to why you think I should accord her any particular respect; that sort of response is precisely why I asked that question. Incidentally, you've yet to demonstrate any breach of NPOV in my case while, at the same time, demonstrating a disturbing lack of neutrality yourself. You find some decent research, or even any research, to support the etymology that you want to assign weight to, I'll happily accept it. You haven't, so I won't. This is not unneutral. Bromley86 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I will say this only one more time: your saying, based entirely upon your own reading of a book, that it is unworthy is editorial bias. Your repeated rejection of this is not a failure on my part to demonstrate your "breach of NPOV". Your use of the word "refute" when Goddard used the more neutral phrase "finds no evidence" is another example; even more so since it is the use of redskin=scalp for which there is no textural evidence. I asked before if you were judging Dunbar-Ortiz in direct comparison with Goddard, which you denied; but apparently you do. She is a historian, so there should be no expectation of etymological research. She is a historian, and gives a detailed, well researched account of the genocide of Native Americans during the period, and places the word redskin in that context. This should stand next to the linguistic research that has a handful of individuals using "red-skin" and "white-skin" with neutral meaning. Historians and linguists have different theoretical orientations, so there should be no expectation that they agree. Since there are no secondary sources to represent academic consensus, which should also not be expected on such a minor issue, each expert must be cited with attribution.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Refute - deny or contradict (a statement or accusation). Goddard: "fictional claim that the word originally referred to scalps, for which there is no evidence." Reread her book: she supplies zero evidence, or even context for the statement, and your insistence that her book is useful is concerning. When we get 3O, this will be put to bed quickly because I can point to multiple secondary sources that discuss Goddard, and that discuss Harjo/Rodriguez, but that do not discuss Dunbar-Ortiz. We reflect what neutral secondary sources say. Bromley86 (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I will only address new issues, not repetitions of old arguments.

The primary meaning of refute is "disprove", rather than "contradict". Agreement on the connotations of words is essential to neutrality. Given the multiple connotations of refute, there is not need to place it in Goddard's mouth when his own words can be used. If there are additional, relevant sources, why have they not already been cited? Why would a source discussing Goddard (2005) mention Dunbar-Ortiz (2014), and even if contemporaneous, why would the lack of mention of a work in a different field of study be meaningful? Indeed, how can one source contradict another written nine years later? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure he thinks he's refuted it, in both senses, as it doesn't take long to demolish an argument with no evidence behind it. However, "dismisses" would work. Good point on the dating; I'd be worried if Dunbar-Ortiz actually constructed an argument. As she doesn't, it hardly changes my position. Bromley86 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

I've split out the Origins part of the etymology section. All points supported by direct citations, which was not the case before. The three types of possible origin are now presented in a logical order: that given until recently in such an authorative source as the OED (paint), then that supported by the most scientific research (skin), then the controversial "revisionist"[2] one (bloody scalps/bodies).

I have not reviewed the Evolving meaning sub-section. Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a NPOV review, further one-sided changes should not be made. The Goddard article was already a named ref, the template:Rp can be used to add page numbers. I will no longer post here but on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Redskin (slang)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I tend to find the rp template ruins the reading flow and that it should be avoided, if possible. Bromley86 (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:3O

WriterArtistDC has an issue with my editing of this article. He's opened a couple of noticeboard cases:

• NPOV, opened without following the process and, in my opinion, entirely without basis. This is still open.
• ANI, closed with a suggestion that we start WP:DR. That was reconfirmed by the ANI commentator, with the suggestion that 3O is the correct route, hence this request.

I'm not trying to rehash these here, merely making sure you're aware of them, for example in case the open NPOV case somehow inhibits WP:3O.

What I'd like you to have a look at is the changes I've tried to make, and which WriterArtistDC has reverted. This is the diff from before I arrived here compared to my last version. WriterArtistDC has repeatedly refused to talk through their objections with me, so we're at an impasse.

1. Flow. The Origins and meaning section in the current version is long and rambling, whereas the version I deployed concisely explains the possible origins. 3 paras, one for each of the possible origins, and in a sensible order. The "paint" origin is dealt with first, as until relatively recently it was given as the origin in the OED. Then the "skin colour", as that's the one that we have the most scholarly work on. Then the controversial "bloody scalps" one that is put forward by activists. All points made are cited, all are RS. I have not reviewed the new Evolving meaning sub-section, nor the Later use sub-section, as the dispute got in the way, so you're only considering the new Origins sub-section.

2. Accuracy. When you look at the cites in my version, they explicitly support the points that they're attached to. This was not the case before. For example, in the first para of the Body prior to my review:
The origin of the term "redskin" in English is debated. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) had cited its earliest use in a 1699 letter from an English colonialist, Samuel Smith, living in Hadley, Massachusetts, which supposedly contains the following passage: "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." Based on this source, the OED suggests the term was specifically applied to the Delaware Indians and "referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."
That cite supported literally none of the points made. This is what it looks like in my version:
The origin of the term "redskin" in English is debated. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) had cited its earliest use in a 1699 letter from an English colonialist, Samuel Smith, living in Hadley, Massachusetts, which supposedly contains both "ye Red Skin Men" and "ye Red Skins." Based on this source, the OED suggested that the term was specifically applied to the Delaware Indians and "referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."

3. Interpretation. The one thing that WriterArtistDC and I have managed to have some small discussion on is regarding a source which is used to support:
A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American.
Setting aside the fact that there is no mention of bloody or scalp for the moment, WriterArtistDC believes that this demonstrates that Taylor says that the origin of the term is from the bounty trade. However, the piece does not say he does. He then suggests that Taylor says something very similar in a book. However, again, he does not: he's reporting what Sue John, an Indian activist, believes. This is important, as WriterArtistDC is trying to use Taylor's academic authority to validate this statement. There's also the question as to why he believes this flawed Lancaster Online source, that only briefly and partially mentions it, is somehow better than two detailed pieces in Slate and Indian Country Today.

Similarly, the thing kicked this all off, when I removed something from the Lead.[3] My reason for removing it was undue weight, but in the edit summary I also comment that it displayed "horrendous bias". WriterArtistDC replied on Talk: "Your opinion of the "bias" of a PhD historian as the citation for a statement on scalping in the lead section has no weight. An equally reliable published source, with and author of similar academic standing, may be used to rebut or reword to indicate the controversy, but not delete content." That's all good and well, but firstly everything we do here involves evaluating sources. Secondly, the Ph.D. historian status has little to do with things, unless she has published on the subject. She appears not to have, as indeed appears to be the case with all of the activists: I've yet to find a study that looks into the various oral traditions. Her opinion is valid and notable, but as an Indian activist (which is the quarter from which all of the claims of the "bloody scalps" origin, that I've seen, have come from), which is why it's still in my version. (Having now examined the source, it's a single throw-away statement with no support, and we have RS that deal with the "bloody scalp" theory, so it carries no weight and should not be included.)

4. Weight & OR. Which takes us neatly onto the Lead. The "bloody scalps" origin has no significant research behind it, and indeed is dismissed as a "fictional claim . . . for which there is no evidence" by Goddard, the academic who has published specifically on the origin of the term.[4] It belongs in the body, but doesn't belong in the Lead.

The original included a chunk of OR in the Body on the Phips Proclamation, which I removed. It added nothing to the establishment of the bloody scalps part, it merely aims to lend credibility to that origin claim by discussing the bounties in greater detail.

Happy to explain any of the individual changes in detail, but that's the general gist. Bromley86 (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Response

The impasse in coming to an agreement on the content of the article is the result of a basic difference in interpretation of WP guidelines, including appropriate editor conduct. What is a reliable source, if not a book written by a PhD historian, in which she places the use of the word redskin in the context of bounty hunting and scalping? Why is the single article by another academic, Goddard, then to be taken as the only unchallenged source for the article, even when he casts doubt upon his own work in an interview? In the absence of academic consensus, WP editors do not have the option of picking and choosing; maintaining a NPOV means to me (after ten years of editing), presenting all reliable sources with whatever attribution or qualifications that can be draw from those sources without bias. Bromley86 asserted from the beginning that editorial discretion allows, or perhaps requires, injecting such bias into editing. I cannot speculate on motives, but the results of his editing has been to almost eliminate the content based upon Native Americans sources, leaving only one white male voice:

A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American, or perhaps the bloody bodies left behind. Goddard refutes this, pointing to the lack of evidence for the claim.

The most obvious problem is stating that a single source "refutes" what other sources have to say, which is nothing if not OR. The second is the oversimplification that has resulted from the elimination of content. There is not a single opinion regarding the connection between redskins and scalping, but at least two. The one supported by academic sources is that bounty hunting and scalping provide the context for the use of the term redskins to refer to Native Americans, and was therefore a pejorative during the same period in which Goddard asserts it was "benign". This is distinct from the assertion redskin=scalp which has become a meme in the current controversy over the Washington NFL team. The sentence above conflates the two, making it unclear that Goddard is "refuting" this latter opinion, but is saying nothing about the former.

The problem is also the one addressed by Dr. Darren R. Reid: as a non-literate society, what Native Americans know about their own history would not be written by themselves, but by Europeans, or not at all. Is all mention of the oral history of a people to be eliminated from an article concerning those people? Is everyone who believes that oral history to be dismissed as an "activist", which in this context appears to mean someone who is inventing "fictions" to support their own agenda? What is much of history except the recording of individual stories by researchers? Both Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and Michael Taylor, holders of PhD's, do this research and publish books that can be cited, but are also dismissed as activists.

(I will not repeat here the user conduct aspect of the dispute I tried to address in the ANI which was inexplicably dismissed as a content dispute. Recently there has been discussion with only a hint of the prior condescension, perhaps there is a path toward resolution.)

I am not disagreeing that the article needed improvement. Although I have made a lot of edits in the past, it was mainly to remove excessive detail from related articles. I have placed an alternative version of the article in my user space. I was planning to highlight the differences between that draft and the current article, but have not yet done so.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Jesus

I don't have time to be your third opinion and you both should go look at my user page before you listen to anything I say, But. I suggest the following as rules for going forward.

1. Nobody reverts anything or makes any large undiscussed changes for 7 days without posting to Talk
2. Breathe. If the article is bad it's been that way for a while
3. Do no use the words obstructive or refute
4. Do not demand respect. This is not the path to getting it, nor is refusing to engage a smart career move on Wikipedia Elinruby (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I will admit to being initially lazy in assuming that the first edits by Bromley86 were deserving of nothing more than reversion with minimal edit summaries, and second reversions without comment. But I do not apologize for not wanting to engage with someone who immediately took a hostile/condescending tone. Life is indeed short, and I am not young, and do not enjoy arguing. I do not have a career on WP. It was an interesting diversion for several years, but now I just want the few articles I spent time on to improve, or at least not deteriorate. These are not important topics in general, but I have seen my exact wording appear in news articles, so there are consequences to WP being a reference used in the real world. "Redskins" is back in the news due the SCOTUS decision striking down the law baring the trademark of racial slurs. This article it likely to receive more traffic if not now then when football season begins.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I did't ask anyone to apologize. Nobody so far has been rude to me. I should probably start by saying that I make no claim to expertise on Native Americans. I am an Irish/quebecois Canadian living in the US. I lived in New Mexico for more than a decade tho, and for a little while had a room-mate who was Santo Domingo/Nez Perce. And a Navaho and Pueblo lab partner in a couple of classes, come to think of it. I listened to Singing Wire on KUNM when it came on the radio when I was in my car. In New Mexico you are always in the car. Apart from driving around the backroads of the Navaho rez a bit the rest of what I know I know from books. But some of them were assigned to me by Lee Francis Jr, who made me work very hard for my B in his seminar. I did learn a lot though, especially how much I didn't and still don't know. Now. The bit about career was intended as a joke. Fine, so noted. Let's just say you're both sounding a bit hostile to me and I think it makes it harder to hear you both. And leave it at that. I understand what you are saying about traffic. I am uncomfortable trying to explain Native American things but have nonetheless gotten sucked into trying to explain the mascot point to male friends who are DC football fans. But as not wanting the article to deteriorate, mmm, he apparently also thinks he has some academic credentials so he probably found that insulting. I haven't looked to see if he is English yet but that may be material. However a less gentle ummm set of writing prompts might just tell you welcome to Wikipedia. Maybe even quote an alphabet soup of policies etc. and mention the word ownership. I am going away now and won't see any other answers until tomorrow sometime at the earliest. Elinruby (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

questions

Now. Someone explain to me here what was wrong with Joy Harjo. I have not read the table or all of the other material yet. I am just asking questions. Does anyone have an issue with Vine Deloria? Why are we spending so much time on the sports team -- didn't that get split into a different article? If the OED entry is based on fiction (can we document this?) then why are we still citing it as an authority? Just things I wonder.

Joy Harjo or Suzan Shown Harjo? Only the latter had anything to say about redskins as far as I know. Vine Deloria is a fine resource, but does not directly address the origin of "redskin". Perhaps the section on sports teams could be summarized more. The OED is mainly being cited because of the major change it made in 2005 based upon Goddard's article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You are probably right about Joy Harjo; I am still skimming, my mistake. I'll come back to that. Vine Deloria does talk about that bounty though, in Custer Died for Your Sins. Page 6 or 7 of the paperback I think -- I looked earlier. I think the plaintiff in the Redskins case talked about the flaying thing and I probably read it in a long profile that one of the Arizona papers (I think) did of her after the Redskins sued her for having the nerve to win her court case. I am pretty sure it came up when she was showing the reporter the dreamcatchers in a truckstop on I40. I haven't read the article by Goddard or the sports mascot case yet so I'll stop there for this section for now. Trying to keep focus Elinruby (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I was reading too fast. The article refers to Suzan; I had Joy on my mind because I once wrote a paper that cited her extensively. I found the article about Amanda Blackhorse I was talking about here; it's in my working notes below but does not talk about redskins. She does however mention this story in the Democracy Now interview. (I saw this in the WADC draft -- if it is not currently in the article it should be.) Incidentally one of the sources says that the bounty only applied to tribes that were allied to the French in the French and Indian wars. Not that this makes it better but in the name of not perpetuating bullshit we should look into this and nail this down, because as I recall the point was that it did *not* include the Penobscot (sp?) Elinruby (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

comments

This isn't anywhere near an ANI case (yet) but neither of you is covering yourself in glory at the moment. People aren't commenting at NPOV (in my opinion) because there is too much squabbling and life is sort. I do not know Dunbar-Ortiz, or Goddard for that matter. I have no authority here; I am just being bossy. But I suggest you have nothing to lose by listening. You both sound stuck.

Precise summaries of the points of disagreement would be immensely helpful to everyone. I suspect they might match more closely than you think. I am pretty sure you are both operating from principle and trying to do the right thing. Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I am an expert both in the general academic fields and with regard to the specific subject of this article. However, I am mainly waiting for someone to take on my GA nomination of Native American mascot controversy, a vain hope; although it worked for Washington Redskins name controversy, another monster. I feel I have made a good summary of my position in several places. I simple want the viewpoint of Native American scholars I cited restored.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You probably did. But you'd assist those trying to understand it if you linked to it here in that case. Elinruby (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We just have a fundamental disagreement on (a) weight and (b) what sources actually say.

The primary weight one would be that Dunbar-Ortiz says this: "The settlers gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp hunts: redskins." I've accessed the book via WP:RX and that is literally all she says to support the use of the word redskin by scalpers to refer to the bodies (or scalps), as opposed to as a synonym for Indian. There's no explanation of how she arrived at this conclusion, nor any reference to anyone else's work on the subject. I can email you the chapter, if you'd like to confirm. We don't have any other RS that refer to her opinion on this matter. I do not believe that this even comes close to the weight of a published (and extensively referenced) journal article by a Smithsonian linguist, one who (despite various aspersions) we have no reason to believe is biased.

So the Dunbar-Ortiz source is useless for us. There's been no research put forward to support the bloody scalps origin. It should however be included, as it's been widely reported in articles that discuss the naming controversy, usually attributed to Harjo.[5]

The primary disagreement over what sources actually say would be whether or not this source supports the statement "A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American." It clearly doesn't, as it doesn't mention scalps or blood (and we have RS that do). A side issue, which I don't think is directly relevant to any suggested text for the article, but which is important in that it shows a fundamental difference in the understanding of sources, is that WADC maintains that the source is sufficient to attribute the belief to Taylor. I maintain that it isn't. A subsequent source provided by WADC to support his position likewise doesn't confirm that Taylor believes this. Note that I'm not saying that he doesn't: he may well, he's just not yet been shown to.

If you could give your opinion on these two matters, we might be able to progress. The 3O section above details the full dispute, if you have a little more time. Bromley86 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I wound up here again while looking up Amanda Blackhorse; an editor inserted some POV stuff about the court case into her article and also here about HS teams. I need to see if the material remains and if it does it should be removed. I'll make a separate post about that. Meanwhile, due weight is always complex and requires a good look at all the material so I am not making any definite statements yet. But here are some preliminary thoughts and questions: I would take the Smithsonian as a reliable source for almost anything in American history. I have concerns in this particular case because of the nature of interactions between anthropologists and Native Americans in the 19th century, which is the century we are discussing. But at this point they are just concerns. I haven't finished an in-depth reading of the article much less the sources. I haven't looked at lancasteronline either but am inclined to think that surely there must be better sources.

Question, do you agree that there was a bounty? Just asking, because so far the discussion has been about whether the blood was the origin of the name. I was thinking that rather than litigate whether this was at the root of the appelation, it would probably be simpler to document that some native americans believe that it is. Remember, a reliable source has a specialized meaning on Wikipedia and does not necessarily need to be scholarly, particularly if it's only supporting a belief as opposed to the validity of the belief. Just a thought. But as I say I have not yet finished reading the material nor have I looked yet at particular quotes by particular people. But the whole discussion of whether Thomas or Dunbar-Ortiz is a more reliable expert possibly is beside the point.

on further examination I guess that should have been Goddard vs Thomas and Dunbar-Ortiz...Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Elinruby, been busy, back now. To answer your question, I agree that bounties were offered. I did some editing of an article that I somehow ended up on, which is to say I am approaching this subject with no preconceptions as to who wronged who more, etc. I must admit, I was extremely surprised to find out how official the taking of Indian scalps was (Cowboy and Indian films not really covering that), but we have contemporary documentary evidence of that, so it's a fact.

Regarding the origin, as you say, I'm more than happy to document that we have sources that make this assertion (it's in my version), as it's been reported. I do think that, as an encyclopaedia, we should also mention that, Goddard, the scholar who's worked on it extensively (to the extent that he's the one always quoted in articles) refutes it. Sure, change "refute" if it's a problem, but he's said "for which there is no evidence" having written an extensive journal article on the origin. I'm not convinced that "scalps" should be in the Lead though, as the weight of the research/support behind it is nil. Bromley86 (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

oh yeah Goddard needs to be in there for sure. Anything published by the Smithsonian is inherently respectable. "Refutes" is a point of contention though and it does have editorial overtones and imply agreement. See my comments below to WADC. I think the article may well have needed an edit and some of the sourcing can still be improved. Nobody is saying you have preconceptions or did anything wrong, though I am inclined to think you give Goddard a little too much credence. It's worth mentioning that academics are not always the best sources in Native American studies, although this comes into an interesting juxtaposition with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy :) But that policy also notably only says that the source must be verifiable and not self-published and also that it must be considered in the context of the statement it is supporting. I had one interesting case where the Encyclopedia Brittanica was a better source than a couple of highly scholarly books, because it turned out the editor was using them to say something must not be true because these sources don't cover it. Hehe. Naturally though we'd rather have something written by an eminent expert, as a rule. And in questions of weight we get into how expert the source is; I'm not saying anything about the lede yet, as we haven't really worked out relative weight. The OED should not be the first thing mentioned if it is wrong, in my opinion... I still haven't gotten nitty-gritty with version A vs version B versus the current version, just picked out a couple of points that seemed resolvable. It is however in my opinion important not to seem to be saying "some Native Americans believe that their ancestors were scalped for bounties, but of course they are wrong." Goddard comes close to this, (and documents his opinion, however) but needs to be included anyway; but some of the other points of view may or may not have been covered by the Smithsonian, notorious at one point for having cardboard boxes of Native American remains -- think British Museum and Egypt. This may have been resolved when they opened up the National Museum of the Native American. I am not sure as the seminar I have mentioned a couple of times happened before that. Incidentally one of the sources I listed below is Dunbar-Ortiz, published by the Smithsonian. I don't think it covers the scalping thing though. Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

oh and question, genuine question, which I am just noting through lack of time to nail it down: did I see somewhere that Goddard only considers through 1826 or so, but that the bounties were more like around 1860? This is not to refute him, ha, as I am sure that what he does say is accurate. Just something that was reminded of by the anecdote above. Assuming I remember correctly. Elinruby (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The logic behind the OED first was that, until relatively recently, the body paint was the official (as far as an encyclopaedia would be concerned) explanation. Then Goddard got involved, then OED revised: it has a decent flow. The alternative would be slightly clunky, IMO, given that the Origins section will only be ~3 paras.

Regarding timings, I think that's the point. If there are significant uses of the word prior to the bounties, then that doesn't look good for the bloody scalps origin.

If "refutes" is really the problem, ditch it. I'm quite certain that Goddard believes that he has refuted it, but let's quote him instead. BTW, you've said you've not had a chance to look at the various versions yet, but please have a gander at my final version (here), specifically the Origins section. I've split the original section, and I've not reviewed the sub-section I called Evolving meaning (which is just the balance of the stuff from the original full section), but the Origins section is all correctly cited, etc. No sense in you going through the whole process of confirming again. Bromley86 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Its the start of a holiday weekend for me, so I will make a few random comments.

• Dr. Darren R. Reid makes several comments in rebuttal to Goddard (without naming him), so why are they in different sections in the proposed content? Shoemaker also says that the use of "red" as a racial term was not likely original, but used in response to the color terminology used by white people; and also that the meaning of "red" may not have been referring to skin color but to culturally symbolic meanings.
• Europeans first encountered the Beothuk in the 17th century, so the usage of "Red Indian" by white people had more than one origin?
• The Phips Proclamation was in 1755, so paying money for scalps predates Goddard's 1769 "original usage".
• In "American Holocaust" historian David Stannard places the first use of "redskins" much earlier than Goddard (1676), and in the context of killing Indians. "Hunting redskins for the time being became a popular sport in New England...".
• The latter points out the continued confusion between two Native American viewpoints:
  • those that state that Europeans called Natives "redskins" when they were killing them, thus making the term a pejorative one in English prior to any occasional usage by Natives (which Reid and others say are likely mistranslations).
  • those that claim scalps/body parts were literally called "redskins" (which I personally agree has now become a distracting meme in the team name controversy such that the authentic oral history cannot be sorted out from the rhetoric). However, oral history cannot be dismissed as a source for WP content when the topic involves what a non-literate society believes.
  • However, both Native viewpoints agree that redskin was always a racist term as used by white people, thus any claim of its being benign, neutral, or honorific is nonsense.
• The article does not address the status of the term as "slang", which means that it would have been used primarily in speaking, and rarely, even among whites. I agree with Reid that Goddard is making too much of the few written documents transcribed from letters/speeches made on formal occasions, particularly given the problems of translations of translations.
• If Dunbar-Ortiz is given to hyperbole, so is Goddard. But each has a PhDs, so let them speak for themselves. The problem is wp:synth, since there are no secondary sources to give an overview of the topic that indicates scholarly consensus. Given the obscurity of the topic, it does not likely exist.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Reid. That's self published, so there's no editorial control, and he's not (AFAIK) been referred to in any of the sources. So including him anywhere is perhaps an issue.
• Beothuk. Perhaps. It's not very clear. Personally I suspect not, as there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support for it, despite it making an appearance in the Beothuk EB article.
• Phips Proclamation. No mention of redskins in that, so it's not relevant to the origin of the word.
• Stannard. Quote attributed to a "modern celebrant of the English". I can't see the note, but this quote is likely not much use in determining the origin. Unless you're saying it's a quote from that 1676 book: that would be interesting, as that would be a reference that all of the scholars cited by Goddard missed.
• A study of oral history is acceptable as a source. A person claiming something with no support is not, unless they manage to get noticed by a 3rd party.
• Spoken slang. Ultimately, we have to deal in evidence. What issue is there regarding translation of translations? The translation of French into English is not commonly fraught with difficulty. Regarding the first transcription, from spoken whatever into written French, there's plenty of detail in the Goddard article that indicates there weren't any errors there.
• Glad to see you finally acknowledging Dunbar-Ortiz's hyperbole. Where is Goddard's? Regarding the "But each has a PhD" point, again that's an appeal to authority. All that does is get them a seat at the table. What you should be interested in the the weight of the material that they have published on the matter. Again, Dunbar-Ortiz has published precisely one sentence, unreferenced and unsupported, as well as hyperbolic. And it doesn't even dovetail with the usual bloody scalps explanation. Not a single 3rd party has referenced her work, in relation to redskins=bloody bodies. In fact, if she wasn't used on WP, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's putting the cart before the horse. Regarding secondary sources, ignoring Goddard for the moment, we have Slate. Bromley86 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

My question was why Reid, who is in your proposed version, is not in the Origins section. You continue to insist that only academic sources that pass your personal review are allowed? What I have read by other scholars (Shoemaker, Vaughn, Reid) leads me to the opinion that Goddard's generalizations regarding Native origin and neutral meaning of the term go beyond what can be reasonably concluded from the few documents surviving from that period. (And, it does seem he missed one.) Hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. Why are the summary conclusions of PhDs accepted? They have a page full of citations? (WP editors must check these citations, are we the peer reviewers?) Or do we accept their expertise (authority)? Is European Review of Native American Studies peer reviewed? I have access to George Mason University library and cannot find it. If content had such strict criteria, WP would largely disappear. The NCAI gives credence to the oral history of redskins and scalping, making it a necessary aspect of the topic.

The issue is translations from Native languages into French and then into English. Even Goddard casts doubt on it.

The Slate article is a journalistic rehash of the Goddard/scalping debate, not a secondary academic source.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is precisely why WP has policies on what sources are allowed, and what are not: to avoid OR and or own personal conclusions. Cite, or be damned. Now, if Reid has published on the subject, I'd be willing to consider what he says.

Feel free to question the European Review of Native American Studies on WP:RSN. I assume it's fine, but if you want to question it, that's your right.

I take it from your comment that you're saying the quote you gave is from the 1676 book? As much information as you have would be appreciated: I can get RX to supply it, but if you have it that seems unnecessary. You can email it to me if it's a file, or too much to reproduce here.

I'm not sure what your point is about hyperbole. You've previously maligned Goddard, and the modern-day Smithsonian, presumably based on things that they did in the past. I hope you can lay off this, unless you have something specific you can point to.

I note that you chose not to reply to a number of the responses to the points you raised. Does that mean you concede those ones?

The NCAI does not give credence to the bloody scalps origin. Assuming you're referring to Elinruby's reference[6], that's again an exceptionally poor source. It's beginning to look like all the sources you want to cite mention it once, and do not expand. I'd consider that poor sourcing on any subject.

Goddard doesn't really cast doubt on the translations. Perhaps you'd like to quote him, fully, on it?

"Journalistic rehash" is a synonym for "secondary source". Goddard is a secondary academic source. There is no such thing for the bloody scalps origin, just a bunch of people (who apparently do not represent all Indians[7]) who state it, with no support other than their own (alleged) personal family histories. They're notable when others notice (Harjo), or when they present evidence in a form that is reviewed. This does not include single sentences in a book, even though that is reviewed (Dunbar-Ortiz). Bromley86 (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a school debate, in which points are made in some contest with a winner or looser. The goal is achieving a workable consensus. You may speculate on reasons why I do not respond to all of your points, but concession is not one of them. I gave my primary reason: its a holiday in the US. However, since I have the time I will ask again: since Reid is in the article, including your proposed version, why is his rebuttal of Goddard (The use of "red" in its various forms, including redskin, by Native Americans to refer to themselves was not original, but reflected their need to use the language of the times in order to be understood by Europeans.) not placed in the Origin section?
• For the NCAI content, I am referring to their amicus brief in support of the trademark case against the Washington Redskins, which they refer to in their 2013 publication, p 13.
• An example of a secondary academic source is a literature review, in which the current state of the art and theoretical orientations guiding research are discussed. While Goddard mentions Shoemaker and Vaughn, a literature review including them and others of the use of "red" might have discussed the tentative nature of sources from the colonial period, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them, which do not include the sweeping generalizations Goddard makes. There is also no logical reason for the assumption that usage of a slang term did not exist because there is no documentary evidence, that is the nature of slang. In the context of first contact between the American and European continents, and the disorientation and conflict of the colonial period, Goddard's "finds no evidence" has an entirely different meaning than the same phase in a modern context. With regard to bloody body parts, rather than "refute" his answer should have been "this is outside of my domain, but as an individual I do not believe it". (My personal opinion is that if it existed, explicit use of redskin=scalp was rare; but the general context of killing "redskins" for bounties made the term pejorative to English speakers (equivalent to nigger) in the 17th century (King Philip's War), not just the 18th or 19th. Is this pejoration invalid because three Chiefs, whose prior European contact had been with the French, chose to refer to themselves as "red-skin" when addressing the English? It is also in the nature of slang to have different meanings to different groups at the same time.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but it's difficult to do that if one person shotguns points and then doesn't engage.

Regarding Reid, asked and answered. I haven't reviewed the Evolving meaning section, so I just left it in there with everything else that I didn't bring into the Orgins section. It's not a RS, so it's not in the section that I did review.

NCAI. That looks decent, on the surface of it, but drilling down shows that there's no actual mention of redskin in the document that it cites to support the point. The support trail: [8] to [9] to [10]. (I'm not sure whether these all are referring to the Phips proclamation or not.) So I wouldn't use the NCAI document as a source, as it appears to evidence the point but in fact does not. We have better sources that accurately describe the bloody scalps situation. Bromley86 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"one person shotguns points and then doesn't engage"? After making my best effort, I can think of nothing to say.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Speaking for myself, I'm a great believer in the truth. Of course, I accept that the truth may be unknowable, or that there may be multiple truths, but I like to run ideas down as far as possible. And I will change my mind if new evidence leads me to.

Take the NCAI one above. If our positions were reversed, I'd have agreed with you if you said "We have better sources that accurately describe the bloody scalps situation." We could then put that one to bed and move on to the next, rather than having a bunch of unresolved issues.

Anyway, if you are about to disengage again, I'd just like to ask you for a response on the Stannard point. If there is a 1676 mention, then not only Goddard missed it, but so did Vaughan and Shoemaker, and the article needs to be updated to reflect the earliest mention.

And I've allowed you to freeze my editing of the article for over a month now. I'll start putting through changes in small increments, and we'll see if they work for you. Bromley86 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You claim to be open-minded, but I see no evidence of that. Whatever evidence I present, there is some reason to recast it as problematical. I actually don't understand what you mean with regard to the NCAI; either their 2013 publication is a reliable source for their position on scalping or not. Does it matter how I said it? The same with Stannard, it is a reliable source that refers to a document that places the first use of redskins prior to Goddard's. That is one of the reasons why, at this point, the sources leave me with more questions than answers. I do not know how to proceed without synthesis, since placing incomparable facts together implies a conclusion not actually in any source. Apparently Elinruby thinks even describing the scalping issue as controversial needs a source. (It now occurs to me that the Slate article could be used for this.)

"I've allowed you to freeze my editing of the article...". This implies ownership, or an assumption that your reasoning is correct and I am in your way. Fully engaging with someone who thinks this is exhausting, and pointless in my opinion. The WP position is that an article can, and perhaps should, remain in whatever state it is until consensus is reached. From Shoemaker, you chose to select the single "fact" regarding the first use of "red" while ignoring her broader discussion that seeks to place the known facts in a context that is consistent with the scientific meaning of truth, that it is always tentative. The level of certainly you seem to seek is not remotely possible for this topic, thus the article must reflect that. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Stick to arguing the facts, not the person. Your attempts to get me censured in ANI and NPOV have both been rejected; perhaps that should tell you something?

The NCAI is indeed useful for describing their position. However, as evidence of the bloody scalps origin, it's useless, as the sourcing it uses does not mention redskins. So when they say "These proclamations demonstrate that the term "Redsk*ns" had its origins in the commodification of Indian skins and body parts; these "Redsk*ns" were required as proof of Indian kill", they're incorrect. It's the old logical fallacy that everyone with this position advances, namely: (1) I've been told that redskins refers to bloody scalps from state-sponsored bounty hunting, (2) here is evidence of state-sponsored bounty hunting, (3) therefore the scalps origin must be true. Never mind that the evidence calls them Indians and not Redskins.

So I have a problem with that source. If we want to use the NCAI, this seems a better one, as it states their position without any spurious support.

Re. Stannard, I've explained that it doesn't appear that you are correct. We've had precisely this issue a number of times, where you have misinterpreted what you have read. In this case, this is what's happened:

• You link to Stanndard. On p.116,[11] Stannard blockquotes text from a 1676 book (this can be confirmed even on the partial version online by searching for "74": note 74 on p.310 cites the source). The term "Redskin" is not mentioned in the quote, neither is the term "red".
• In the second paragraph following the quote, Stannard quotes "Hunting redskins for the time being became a popular sport in New England..." You appear to choose to believe that this is from the same source, which would be odd for a number of reasons. First, not only Goddard, but also other academics who have looked into red/redskin, have not noticed this source: this should be a massive red flag to you and indicate that you need to reread to confirm. Second, even to a non-expert, the English doesn't sound particularly 17th century (compare to the title of the 1676 book): although that's hardly conclusive. Third, I drew attention to how Stannard introduced the quote, namely: "As one modern celebrant of the English puts it..." "Modern", not "contemporary".
• Instead of reconsidering, you double-down on insisting that this quote is evidence of pre-1769 usage, without responding to requests to explain why you think it is. So I search for note 76 (p.310 again) and find that the quote comes from a 1958 book Flintlock and Tomahawk, by Leach.
• Now, I've not had sight of Leach's book, but in the absence of any further information, I think we can assume that it is he who Stannard is calling a "modern celebrant". Unless I'm misinterpreting something?

Regarding "controversial", I agree that the Slate piece covers that. I also think the ICT source used does too: neither uses the word controversial, but both support its use here.

Not sure what your point is regarding Shoemaker. I don't think I've referred to her; I think I've referred to Goddard referring to her. Do you have a reference you want considered?

Certainty: Goddard seems pretty certain. If someone wants to publish to call this into question, then that's good, but they don't appear to have so far. Bromley86 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit and replaced it with an entire subsection on "red" referenced using Shoemaker and Vaughn.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag on controversial. If you and I can agree on something, it's probably fine :) . Bromley86 (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

References

working notes for source due diligence

• Taylor book -mentions redskins but not scalping in this context -- looking for other writings. Note that he does not appear to meet general notability or the professor rule, but that is not a requirement for the author of a reference.
• Amanda Blackhorse
• WP 2005 see Shoemaker on p2
• Harjo in the Guardian
• Dakota hanging
• Before the Redskins were the Redskin - maybe more for mascot article
• Killsback - mentions skinning at Dakota hanging
• European Review of Native American Studies
• NCAI - explicitly mentions bloody scalps

Lancaster Online does not have a published editorial policy. There is enough there under About Us for me to be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt as a credible news source but reliability always greatly depends on context. Part of that context is that Lancaster is 0.44% Native American according to its WP page. Probably believable as to direct quotes, but is the lede actually an indirect quote? I'm leaning to yes but it's not the strongest supporting material I have ever seen, and it's not something we should have to infer. Elinruby (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to get into the details of article content. This is not a content dispute per se, but a NPOV issue. Neutrality ideally emerges from a consensus of editors, but when there are only two, and administrative decision must be made to break the tie, since each of us claim to have made a good faith effort to resolve this. Either one interpretation of WP guidelines is correct; or the other. I must point out that the other party has not responded recently. Of course, the problem may be that it is summer, and people have better things to do.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Weight and NPOV do require an examination of sources, sorry. This is not my first time being a third party/fresh eyes to one of these disputes and that is the way it is done, at least by me. If you have not read my user page you might want to do so, with particular attention to the part about "if you ask for my opinion you may get it". Let's start with, Lancasteronline is perhaps a reliable source, but very borderline in this context. Have you read the Shoemaker piece someone linked to above? It's pretty detailed and has a number of thoughts that are not currently in the article. Elinruby (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

LancasterOnline is supported by Taylor's book. page 40. Basically, Taylor, Dunbar-Ortiz, and others are saying that the context of relations between Natives and Europeans from the 15th to the 19th centuries varied from exploitation to extermination, and "redskin" originated in this context. In the absence of any secondary source that compares this perspective with Goddard's "benign origin", each should be presented without bias.

My notes on Shoemaker, Goddard, and other academic sources are here.

Other sources, including Amanda Blackhorse and Suzan Harjo, are missing from the current article because they were deleted.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look. Meanwhile, the Democracy Now interview of Blackhorse is a perfectly good source for the belief that she at least believes this is true. And as lead plaintiff her beliefs are relevant. I am pretty sure Democracy Now has been through the Reliable Sources notice board a few times and usually it is considered good journalism. Advocacy journalism but reliable at least for thr fact that this is what she said. I am quite certain it would be found reliable for her statement. I did a 'find' on the Taylor book for "redskin" and did not see anything about scalps. But most of the hits were on pages that do not display and they don't give you a *lot* of context so I am willing to believe I missed something. I will look again but I may need to locate a physical book in a library. Meanwhile, whether he himself is notable or not, you can quote him. Notability will matter for weight though, at least a little. Probably. But incidentally neither Goddard nor Duncan-Ortiz appear to meet that standard either so it's mostly moot. There is some stuff above about the Dakota hangings that may be grist for your mill as well. Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I do see it actually. What comes before "her activist experience" do you know? Is he talking about Harjo? Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Both Ives Goddard and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz have their own WP articles.

The "Origin and Meaning" section should cover a number of perspectives:

• Goddard cites four documents from 1769 in which chiefs refer to themselves in their own language (Miami-Illinois) using words that were written down in French as "peux rouge" by trappers or traders who were "not men of learning" and then translated into English as "redskin". This establishes for him that the term originated with Native Americans, and thus has to be taken as benign or neutral in meaning although the actual content of the messages were about potential conflict. After a 43 year absence, the term again appear in formal statements made by chiefs to Europeans. The term then entered the common vernacular in the works of James Fenimore Cooper. Goddard admits in an interview that the accuracy of the translations cannot be verified. In his own primary research into native languages, as written phonetically in the 19th century, he finds words for "red skin" and "brown skin" both being used by the same language as in 1769. This coincides with Hinton's note that find native languages using the same word for the entire red to brown part of the color spectrum.
• Shoemaker states that in the 1720s tribes in the southeast used "red" in response to Europeans calling themselves "white" and their slaves "black", while pre-contact natives called themselves "people" or "human beings".
• Several sources talk about Europeans using "red Indian" only to refer to those that painted their bodies; while Vaughn states that Europeans did not view Natives as having a skin color essentially different than themselves; with apparent differences attributed to sun exposure and/or pigments.
• In Taylor and Dunbar-Ortiz, the associate is between redskins and bounty hunting, which is only indirectly associated with bloody scalps or skins.
• Blackhorse and Harjoe, among other state that a redskin was a scalp based upon oral tradition, which is dismissed by Goddard as "fiction". Harjo dismisses Goddard as white men's history.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You are right about the WP articles, duh. I know about peaux-rouges as it was used in my history books in grade school (and btw french wikipedia still uses the term today) but I have not yet seen a good source for the "men of little learning" part. Indeed the coureurs de bois were likely illiterate or nearly so, but possibly not the Jesuits who accompanied them. But the argument *does* seem plausible. Needs a source. If there is one already, don't feel you need to type stuff out again. I will do another deep dive in this soon but don't feel like doing so right this second. As I mentioned above, the Democracy Now reference is fine for Blackhorse talking about oral history. Pretty sure that will withstand a challenge. Lancaster online is iffy since we're assuming an indirect quote is correct and it's not known as a bastion of journalism nor of sophistication about such issues. Probably *is* ok but vulnerable to challenge... you should probably use the book instead or possibly find a different interview. Meanwhile we are not called upon to decide whether Native American oral history is correct, merely to report it from all points of view with reliable sources so no the oral history cannot be dismissed as fiction. Elinruby (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

re little learning - found this in the Goddard article but it's an incidental comment -- I think you're better off quoting Goddard on the translators being French speakers, whose translations where then translated from french to english. There is no question (I can assure you) that the French said peaux-rouges. I don't think it was intended to be derogatory at the time but what do I know? And anyway the point is that the term was and is in common use. Elinruby (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but did peaux-rouge mean "literally" red-skin or idiomatically "red people"? The latter was used in one of Goddard's 1813 translations and I found the same in a current French-English dictionary. My personal background in psychology (and learning a little French) intrudes here, since I have always thought of a proper translation as being idiomatic rather than word-for-word.

As I heard it used it was a general term for what are now called people of the First Nations. Not flayed skins, if that is what you are asking. I am not saying the translation was good; translations of translations almost never are. Just a passing thought. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In saying "we are not called upon to decide" can I gather that you agree with my reading of WP guidelines: let the sources speak for themselves?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that I know what you mean by "let the sources speak for themselves". The issue here seems to be which sources, although i haven't really untangled everything to my satisfaction. He wasn't wrong to do a copy edit or to question some of the sources. Both of you were wrong about the criteria for sources. They don't have to be academic, especially on a topic where the OED has been demonstrated to have been wrong. The opinions of Amanda Blackhorse and the NCAI are relevant and we have RS for those. I based this on a bunch of time on that noticeboard. The NCAI link is a primary source but is reliable for their position. Democracy Now is reliable as a faithful representation of what Backhorse said. I am still looking at some other things and will have more to say but I am pretty confident of those statments. Incidentally I did an edit of the article, mostly a light copyedit, but I also took issue with a couple stray issues of tone. More exist but that was some low-hanging fruit. You both may wish to take a look and if you disagree say so. As I mentioned before I am just another editor here. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Specifically I meant don't say Goddard refutes scalping, which was a major factor in my placing the NPOV tag rather than starting/continue an edit war. This you corrected, thanks. Since I am happy with the way things are going, I would gladly post to the NPOV noticeboard that the issue is being resolved. Its not likely that any other participants from that direction will come forward in July. I will be away for full week in the middle of the month.

I do not think sources here need to be academic, but that they carry more weight; and would gladly restore the sources of the Native American voices.

I agree that the paragraph beginning "It is argued by sociologist Irving Lewis Allen" is awkward and unclear. I could go back to the sources and find better wording.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, in my opinion, the word should not be used on Wikipedia as it implies agreement. You refute something that is wrong, like, I don't know, birtherism. It's not unusual for NPOV to be of no help, especially if the issue looks amorphous and time-consuming to unravel. I happened to have already done some of the learning curve on the mascot issue, and to be looking for a reason to take periodic break from the ugly translation cleanup I've been working on. If you're talking about the html comment I left, it was more a note to myself but sure, please feel free to tackle it yourself. One less thing to worry about on the repass. On a first speed-edit, though, nothing better came to mind. Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

side note: it may be worth noting that the French and the Iroquois were allies against the English. And maybe some other tribes, but in Quebec the Mohawk for sure...Wasn't there something about that Massachussetts bounty applying to French-allied tribes? Elinruby (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment on "Before the Redskins were the Redskin", which I believe is the source that you're referring to as it mentions (amoung other things) that the bounties applied to French-allied tribes. Not sure how accurate it is, as it seems very confused on the Phips Proclamation. Page 7, note 27, attributes the proclamation to Shirley and said it didn't apply to the Penobscotts. Unless there were 2 proclamations in 1755, with the Phips one occurring after the Shirley one? Incidentally, there appears to have been a clarification issued by Phips that meant that bounties were only to be paid to militia, or at lest that's my reading of it.[12] Bromley86 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm not wedded to "refutes". I'd just say that, in the context I was using it ("Goddard refutes this, pointing to the lack of evidence for the claim.") refutes takes on the second meaning, where it means to deny or contradict, rather than disprove. There's an implied meaning of the denial being backed by evidence, but the context makes clear that it's a personal opinion. Maybe it's a British English vs. American English thing? Bromley86 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

possibly, although I am not sure which one I speak, and I've been exposed to both (my father was Scottish and lived in England). I personally, not speaking as Wikipedia here, avoid using "claimed" and "refute" among a few other words that seem to me to imply an opinion on the claim or refuted statement. If you can propose a synonym that would be good. I have a good deal going on in rl and currently have many tabs open for an editing session on another topic I've been wanting to get back to. I did take enough of a look at this page to satisfy myself that the reference about the Beothunk was from a good source and did indeed say that they used red pigments, if that helps to advance anything. I don't quite recall the connection being made to redskin though. I could be wrogn about that however and don't want to check right now. I am unable on a fast scan to determine this veryfocuses question of which you both speak ;) I will commit to having a good look at the talk page and the section in question within the next couple of days. I hope but do not promise to have something intelligent to say after that ;) Feel free to seek attention elsewhere if you like as well. There may be something to be said about fresh eyes. For what it is worth you are, yes. coming across as a bit patronizing and rather obstructive, respectively, lol. But I love you both anyway and will be back in a bit to see if I can be of any assistance. Bromley86 may seem patronizing because of his language mannerisms, just possibly, and WriterArtistDC does seem to know the topic, but should quit it with the wholesale deletions. There are people who disagree with yu who want to fix the page; you both need to come to terms with that and discuss major edits. I am not up for this right this very second. Mainstream also sounds kinda patronizing, incidentally. As opposed to....what exactly? You should be aware, both of you,that the average administrator might be inclined to solve this by locking down whatever version of the page strikes him/her as stable, and I think you both agree that the page needs work, right? Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"wholesale deletions"? I have spent almost three months doing nothing except trying to restore content that provides the Native American point of view to an article that is about Native Americans. This has involved reverting deletions, not making them. I do consider myself a content-area expert, and am drafting a statement of my original NPOV concerns. I see from the page history that there has been a spike in page views in Oct. of 2015 and 2016, so am willing to put this all on hold until fall, when there may be some chance of additional participation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes of mainstream scholarship

When I edit an article, it is not my practice to re-invent the wheel, but to assume that academic sources already present have been cited and summarized accurately. Thus I had previously only skimmed Goddard's article, and regarded him as a careful scholar presenting the unbiased POV of his particular area of expertise. Now, after a close reading of "I AM A RED-SKIN" and the other academic sources, I have nothing but questions regarding the two summary statements Goddard makes: (1) The term is "entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth" and (2) "It is clear from the earliest citations that redskin was regarded as an Indian expression. It was at first used only to translate what Indians said or as a consciously adopted Indian turn of phrase employed in formally addressing Indians. The tribal identities of the speakers who were quoted using this word in the period from 1769 to 1822 point to its specific languages of origin."

The use of "entirely benign" and "positive" seem questionable when the evidence being used were messages addressed by Native chiefs to the English offering safe passage for meeting, and alluding to consequences if the encounter resulted in death. The context for these "origin" messages was the aftermath of the French and Indian War (1754–63), in which tribes that previously had relations with the French were now forming new relations with the English, using formal and diplomatic language. The most generous assumption I could make is that Goddard, as a linguist, came to his conclusions based upon all the evidence that his specialty normally looks at, while ignoring the evidence that an historian would also consider. However, drilling down, I also read the articles by Shoemaker and Vaughn, which Goddard cites to establish the date for the first use of "red" in the 1720s, discrediting the "Samuel Smith's Letter" of 1699; but ignoring Shoemaker's description of Indian's use of "red" as a response to colonist's use of "white" and "black". Furthermore, there is no analysis in Goddard to address the other issues: that the native word for red may have been used for a broad range of the color spectrum which included brown and ochre; that the use of "red" was cultural, including origin stories of different tribes, and thus the meaning of red for natives is not captured in the literal translation of peux-rouge as red-skin. Several sources point to the more likely scenario; native may have occasionally called themselves red, redmen, or redskin primarily when addressing whites, and with idiomatic meaning that may have been neutral or even positive to them, but already had a negative meaning for white people they were addressing. These scenarios cannot be resolved due to the scant few documents cited which are insufficient evidence for any conclusions and certainly not Goddard's sweeping generalizations. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What can a WP editors do if there is no academic consensus on a topic to provide a framework that allows for adding content from various sources that avoids original research, including synthesis? My editing of the topic Washington Redskins name controversy to achieve GA status, which has been maintained for a year with minor changes, indicates a possible course of action. Each aspect of a topic is given its own section with unbiased summaries of the relevant sources. Unfortunately, Goddard stands alone, having done an extensive analysis of the term "redskin" while the Native American community has responded that this is just another example of colonial/settler mentality. Which POV is to be represented in the article? For one editor, the knee-jerk reaction is "science". But is science represented by a single article, no matter how carefully researched? Is an article about Native Americans to exclude the Native POV? I have decided, it cannot, so my recent edits have restored than content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Red

I've reduced down the "red" subsection (we don't need that level of detail, just a summary) and merged it into the main section. If it's accepted, we can move on and start putting sub sections in. Bromley86 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a waste of time to edit without explicit consensus or collaboration. I mistakenly assumed since Shoemaker is a valid addition, a full summary of her paper and making it a prefatory subsection would meet with no objections. I have accepted that the stable form of this article will not be exactly what I would like, but may wait until Summer is over, hopefully with additional editorial participation, to start again. The POV tag can remain.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

She's certainly a valid addition: she was a significant source of the "red" section in Goddard, so there's nothing wrong with drilling down to the source.

I've added the subsections and, for the moment, put Reid in the Origins subsection (per my interpretation of your preference). Feel free to move it if you think it's better elsewhere. Bromley86 (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Lack of response should not be taken as assent. I have other things to do now. No WP editor should expect anything they contribute to remain.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I'm taking it slowly and incrementally to give you time to dissent, but it's silly to leave the article messed up if we can agree. For example, we've already agreed on expanding the "red" element: sure, there's more in there that I initially added, and less than you initially added, but like it or not, what we currently have is something like consensus.

Where we can't, I'll RfC or 3O on those specific points individually, as clearly the breadth of our disagreements is significant, and is scaring off potential punters. Likewise, using "red" for example, there's nothing to stop you starting a 3O/RfC, and we now have a simple agreed (well, agreed in that it s a trimmed version of what you'd previously added) text that you can compare your preferred version to. Bromley86 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Restart

With the SCOTUS decision on the trademark and the beginning of the NFL season, this article may receive increased attention. The disputed section has been made more biased rather than improved by edits made since I opened the NPOV discussion, so I have restored some content that is essential to the topic: a complete summary on "red" as a racial identifier which serves as a context for the specific example of "redskin", and the content supported by Native American sources. Also cleanup of Reid focusing on etymology. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Except we didn't agree to include that - I'll revert to the last thing we agreed on. As you've not accepted the step-by-step edits, I'll potter off to WP:RSN when I get back to deal with the thing that kicked this off in the first place. Bromley86 (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There has never been an agreement, neither on content nor guidelines. I specifically stated that silence should not be taken as consent during this vacation/holiday period. The brief third party participation indicated support for restoring the Native American viewpoint. Instead, Dunbar-Ortiz was once again been removed based upon personal opinion. I do not expect any other participation until after Labor Day, but until then there can be complete coverage of the topic based upon all sources.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think not. Reverted to pre your spammy red add. I'd trimmed that to a sensible length, and thought that you preferred that to it not being in there at all, but apparently you don't like that now. If you want to hash it out here, fair enough. Bromley86 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue as to what you may be thinking, and two months of attempting to work things out has not changed this.

• All relevant points of view on a controversial topic must be represented by directly summarizing all verifiable sources. No editorializing, outright bias, or original research.
• All the "red" material is to me a needed preface to understanding "redskin", no trimming needed.
• The Native American content is as neutral as I can make it. This does not mean I am in personal agreement with any or all; but individuals with credentials and notability are making statements on the origin and meaning of the term "redskin". The idea that this should be reduced to a single clause in a sentence in which Goddard's viewpoint predominates is absurd to me.
• Goddard's paper has its own subsection as the generally accepted mainstream academic view, but not the only view on etymology. Needs rewording and expansion with direct quotes of his conclusions. However, Reid's statements, some of Shoemaker's, and his own comment about translations cast doubt on the basis for these conclusions, so this is the most difficult issue; how to present this content without WP:synth.
• This is the basic structure but everything needs work to improve clarity.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"All the "red" material is to me a needed preface to understanding "redskin", no trimming needed." On this we disagree. Would you like the cut-down version , which also happens to solve the (IIRC) copyvio issues, added? Surely some is better than none? Bromley86 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is not overly long, I see no need to be terse.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. However, the reason why I started editing this article was because it seemed to me it was a rambling cut-and-paste from both sources and other WP articles, so we clearly disagree on what a good article looks like.

You've been using this non-NPOV accusation to block *all* of my editing on this article (see the recent incremental edits, which presumably didn't all fall foul of your NPOV issue). I think we should resolve that first, rather than introducing something else. However, as mentioned, if you want to do it now there is a substantial Red add that we can add, because I agree with it and because it was 100% sourced from your material: all you need to do is accept that, for the moment. Bromley86 (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If consensus before editing were the rule, the article would be reverted back to the version before you began. I have never claimed the article was anything close to good at that time, quite the opposite, but your edits made it worse. The "restart" version is the typical mediocre WP article, I would like to improve it, if allowed to do so.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we can do that if you want. However, the inclusion of your Red paragraph without discussion is not on the table. Please stop edit warring: it never ends well. Bromley86 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This confirms to me that you do not understand the concept of collaboration between equals: everything is always on the table. So I feel forced to go to 3RR a bit late since my reasonable additions have been reverted 5 times.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not in a collaboration between equals: one of the equals can always remove something from the table, otherwise they're not equal. That aside, I think you misunderstood what I said, which is that I do not agree to you including something without us (or, if someone else comes along, the majority) reaching consensus: we have enough disagreements already without expanding them. As to the edit warring, perhaps you might examine your own behaviour? I made incremental edits, culminating in the removal of something you believe should be in there. You reverted even the uncontroversial ones, rather than just reverting the Dunbar-Ortiz one, and repeatedly added something back when asked not to.

And the earlier ones were all uncontroversial, even the Red one. Sure, it might not have been what you wanted, but then it wasn't what I initially included (that you reverted) either. That's how you build something when two people disagree: you go as far as you can.

Anyway, good news. We're currently on track to remove the reference to bodies supported by Dunbar-Ortiz (see WP:RSN). Without being a jerk about this, I hope you'll reflect on why that is. Once I looked at it, it was immediately obvious that it did not deserve inclusion. This should have also been obvious to you as you are familiar with her work, but instead it was "incomprehensible to me that anyone would fail to give Dunbar-Ortiz the respect she deserves." NPOV means she does not, in and of herself, deserve respect: only her work does, and not blindly. Bromley86 (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Red again

@WriterArtistDC. Can we agree to include the trimmed/copyvio-corrected version of your Red add, as per this diff? It may not be everything you want, but as we both agree that there should be some reference to "red" being used prior to "redskin". As the only academic source on redskin includes a section on it, something should be in there.

Then we can proceed with other incremental changes. Bromley86 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any reason not to have the "red" content as an introductory subsection with my complete summary of Shoemaker and Vaughn, and the reference to the Beothuk. Your version cites the first occurrence in 1725 while I see that as unnecessary detail. Your version also has "'red' as an identifier by Native Americans for themselves" while Shoemaker is actually equivocal: "There are two likely scenarios for why Indians began to identify themselves as 'red.' First, 'red' may have been an Indian response to meeting strange new people who called themselves 'white' to distinguish themselves from their 'black' or 'Negro' slaves. Second, some Indians may have considered themselves 'red' or been called so by other Indians before the arrival of Europeans. Actually, these are not mutually exclusive scenarios but instead work in combination."--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If we're trying to establish the origin of redskin, the fact that red has been recorded as being used prior to that, and by Indians before Europeans, is perhaps the most important point. And Shoemaker is not equivocal about whether or not it was the Indians who first used it, just on whether some of them already did that, or whether it was in response to the racial categorisation of white/black used by the Europeans. Your quote above confirms this.

Anyway, so we can move forward, could you give your yay or nay on the inclusion of the inclusion of the suggested Red para above or not? Bromley86 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot agree. We cannot even agree when someone plainly says there are two equally likely alternatives, rather than the one you prefer.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems odd to me, but we'll stick a pin in it an move on. Bromley86 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that my posting to the Edit Warring noticeboard was useless, since it froze the article for a week of discussion to reach agreement that two months had not produced. Even less productive, it is frozen with my edits reverted, so the current state of the article is not a meaningful starting place for me. The discussion on the Reliable Source noticeboard is similarly useless, since it is about the use of the Dunbar-Ortiz reference that I had already changed to something more neutral in my reverted Native American opinion subsection.

It has been hovering close to 100° F this week, and like most in DC I will not likely be doing anything except looking for relief from the heat in August, returning after Labor Day.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I do hope you're not suggesting that you're going to disappear until September, then come back and revert everything again. I'm willing to work through this article in baby steps with you, but I won't accept that. If you're not around, I'll edit the article to get it into shape and we can discuss changes you want to make when you get back.

And the RSN result is not useless. It has confirmed my position that she is not a RS on this issue, which has been a key bone of contention between us. Bromley86 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The RSN is a moot point, since it was in reference to language that you wrote, not me. Instead of citing her as proof of bloody redskins, I attributed her own words to her as an indication of Native American opinion in the section you reverted, so that has not been discussed.

Do not imagine that there is anything like a deadline on WP. Editors come, go, have other things to do for any period of time. No one should expect anything to get done during holiday seasons or summer in the northern hemisphere. In my eleven years, that has not been my experience. Thinking that edits will somehow remain inviolate implies ownership. I accept the opposite, and am surprised at how little articles I edited in past have changed. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but likewise you can't expect to just pop by every month or so and revert. Either you're involved, or not.

And the RSN is just as applicable to "In An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, "redskin" is said not to refer to scalps, but to the bloody bodies left behind by scalp-hunters" as it is to "or perhaps the bloody bodies left behind". Bromley86 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Goddard para

Any objections to the changes made in this edit to the second half of the "Goddard proposes" para? Also, do you still agree that we can remove the fact tag on "controversial"? Bromley86 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Reid

I'd like to remove the entirely of the Darren Reid element ("In a lecture on the origins and meaning..." and the subsequent 5 bullet points), all supported by this. The justification is WP:USERGENERATED: namely, that it's a self-published blog. Although Reid is a historian, he's (as far as I can tell) not published on this subject, nor is he referred to in any of the secondary sources we have on the subject. Those would be the usual way of allowing blogs to be used as reliable sources in an article. Comments? Bromley86 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Reid is giving his analysis as a historian whose early work was on Native Americans during the colonial period, although he has now turned to modern topics. That his analysis is presented as a lecture (more like a podcast), the transcript of which is posted on his blog is not an issue for me since there is no doubt of the authenticity and relevance of the content. I know of two other professors with blogs/websites I have cited. As the new generation of scholars turn more to new media, WP will need to differentiate between them and anonymous, amateur "bloggers". Here is a news articlethat refers to him that I found on a first try googling him, there are likely others.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. It might not be an issue for you, but I'm not convinced he's a reliable source on this subject, and certainly not one that merits such a substantial inclusion. I had a search for him on googlenews, and the one you give is the only mention I found, where he's mentioned in a footnote to support a paragraph that deals with the supposed 1699 origin. As Goddard pointed out this was bollocks in 2005, it's a bit silly for James Loewen to include it in a 2015 piece. Bromley86 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Restart 2.0

Given the proposal to remove Reid, and the stated intention to remove Dunbar-Ortiz do not bode well for consensus, I see little chance for agreement on the content without additional participants. The attempts at stimulating such participation have not been productive. The only response to the third opinion stated up front a lack of time to take that role, and the noticeboard responses seem to me perfunctory, with no real interest in the issues unique to this article.

One real issue seems very basic; what does it mean to be "encyclopedic"?

My definition is very open, and depends upon the topic. If the topic of an article is within the domain of a scientific discipline with mainstream agreement, I would not question the exclusion of any source or content that did not meet the strictest criteria. This article has nothing close to mainstream agreement. There is no basis for excluding any source as "fringe" other than the personal opinion of editors, which I cannot accept.

My reading of all academic sources leave me with the opinion that the use of the term redskin can only be understood linguistically within the context of the use of color as racial identifiers; and historically within the context of the genocide of Native Americans.

Within the former context, Shoemaker appears to be the best source, since she acknowledges the historical context as well and the difficulty of making definitive statements based upon the limited facts available (as does Reid). She understands the cultural relativity of language, referring to the abstract meaning of colors (e.g. red for war, white for peace) rather than the literal, denotative meaning. She also points to the difficulty of making statements about "Native Americans" when there are multiple linguistic and cultural communities. Sociologist C. Richard King vaults Goddard for oversimplification, and I agree. His diligent pursuit of facts does not support his generalizations because he ignores the context, and glosses over the issues of translation.

Reid, Taylor, and Dunbar-Oritz provide the historical context as well as the Native American point of view.

My addition of subsections on "Red" and "Native American opinion" were my attempt to provide this necessary context. I will continue to maintain that the article is biased until some content that acknowledges these complexities is allowed to remain. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Following the WP:RSN, removal of Dunbar-Ortiz is the one thing that we do have consensus for. The subtext of your position appears to be that you don't like Goddard as a source. However his article is the epitome of a reliable source, and is always referenced to in other reliable sources that discuss the issue. No idea what King says about Goddard, so I can't respond to that.

The key here is, however qualified you may feel you are, you are not a RS. If you have one that critiques Goddard, have at it. Bromley86 (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I've put through some fairly uncontroversial edits to get the text into shape. I've not moved Reid: feel free to move it to whichever section you think it should be in. Once we have something that's as good as it can be with just you and I doing it, we can get others in to help, even if it's just on a case-by-case basis. Bromley86 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You have this exactly backward. While I have issues with Goddard, I cite King and Shoemaker, rather than myself as the RS for my opinion, but do not argue for removal of any content his article contains. I argue for equal respect for Dunbar-Ortiz. Your position, supported inexplicably by the RS noticeboard, is that editors are allowed to decide that a source is "fringe" without citing a RS that established the "mainstream" from which it diverges. A single source, Goddard, is not sufficient to establish this mainstream, quite the opposite.

I may reintroduce the "Red" subsection and see what happens.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand how reliable sources are evaluated, and how weight is assigned, but you won't listen to me. Nor, apparently, the RSN. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm going to revert the add, and we can get a 3O in. Perhaps Elinruby can be enticed back in for a specific either-or option, with diffs? And, if not, we'll have a much better chance of getting a 3O on a single issue: hell, it worked for the Dunbar-Ortiz thing. Either way, I'll revert to give the diff, before reverting myself back to what we had before. Bromley86 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, diff. I'll write up the 3O section when I get a chance, then invite a 3O. Feel free to beat me to it though. Bromley86 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the "Red" content, I find no logic in the fact that there are articles on White people and Black people but Red people is a redirect. Either the "Red as a racial identifier" content should be fully covered here or the latter article should have its own content. However, the titles of these articles are problematic, since there does not appear to be any multicultural agreement on Color terminology for race; and this "main article" for the concept being kind of a mess, and organized geographically rather than by color.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

They've very different levels of coverage.

News:

• "White people" - 710k
• "Black people" - 464k
• "Red people" - 6.5k

Books:

• "White people" - 1,690k
• "Black people" - 777k
• "Red people" - 37k

I'd suggest that it should repoint to Color terminology for race as does "Yellow people", and that that section should be rewritten. 1-2 paras, perhaps with a see also to here. Bromley86 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Native Americans are a tiny minority, so the representation of Native American topics on WP should also be tiny? There is a name for this: "Colorblind Racism"

"Colorblind ideologies are dangerous because they can, as Dr. Martin Luther King suggests, foster 'sincere ignorance' and 'conscientious stupidity.' These ideologies... render invisible the experiences and the everyday realities of different racial groups." - Fryberg, Stephanie A.; Stephens, Nicole M. (April 2010). "When the World Is Colorblind, American Indians Are Invisible: A Diversity Science Approach" (PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 21 (2): 115–119. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2010.483847. ISSN 1047-840X. Retrieved 2014-11-16.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Lead

I'm not reverting the Lead change just because it's what you and I do to each other. The most important piece of information is the current situation (the article title is "Redskin (slang)"), then the etymology, then the commentary. Bromley86 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I am left with the impression that no changes to this article can be made without your approval, perhaps your authorship.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have given you a logical reason for what I did: even if you disagree with it, do you acknowledge that it's a reasonable position to take on an article about a slang term? I imagine so, as you've had no problem with it for years. Indeed, I'd be rather surprised if you weren't the one who initially added it. Bromley86 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:3O: Inclusion of a paragraph/section on use of "red" by Indians prior to "redskin"

There's been substantial and protracted disagreement on this article between myself and WriterArtistDC. As we're the only two editors who are editing at the moment, that's made consensus impossible. I tried to get a 3O earlier, but as it was for an extensive edit, we didn't attract anyone. So I've moved to dealing with the issues incrementally, via RSN or 3O, as applicable.

In this case, we should actually have consensus for inclusion, as we both agree that there should be mention of the use by Indians of the term red (e.g. "red people") prior to their use of the term "redskin", and that they were recorded as using red prior to it's use by Europeans. However, WriterArtistDC wants a more extensive section than I do, and isn't willing to accept a cut-down version, so the article currently has no mention of it.

This is a diff that shows the two versions: WriterArtistDC's and mine. The first thing you'll note is that they both use the same sources - in arriving at mine, I merely took WriterArtistDC's original addition, and copyedited it to remove the copyvios and trim the length, before adding it as a paragraph rather than a section. Vaughan is available on JSTOR if you set up a free account with them, but our text that he supports is very similar, so you may not find it necessary to verify to source. Bromley86 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Bromley86

Reasoning:

1. We allocate weight based on reliable sources, and reliable sources that deal with redskin mention red in a fairly tangential way. From our article: Goddard, the most detailed academic source, has just over a page on it; he has something like 12 pages on redskin.[13] Slate has 2 sentences in a fairly extensive article.[14] WashPo has nothing,[15] likewise WashTimes,[16] and Indian Country Today.[17]
2. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dissertation, and a simple summary is preferred. This article has tended to ramble; that's part of what drew me in in the first place. I've managed to get some sub-section headings into the Etymology section now, so it's beginning to look more professional, but the addition of another subsection just reduces the ease of reading. There's also no need to include quotes when we can paraphrase and summarise.
3. Conclusions. WriterArtistDC's version says "the general use of the term was in response to meeting people who called themselves "white"", but as far as I can see Shoemaker doesn't actually say this. She does conclude (p.637): "Unforunately, there is no simple answer." Hence my it may have been this, it may have been that, which I think more accurately summarises her position.
4. "Pervasive symbolic meanings". Goddard argues that there is not necessarily any connection. It's simpler to exclude both the assertion and the counter as this is meant to just be a brief intro into the use of red prior to redskin, hence my use of "may derive from cultural associations" rather than going into detail. Anyone who wants to can access the source.
5. Detail on the NE usage (or lack thereof). Again, not necessary to go into that level of detail.
6. First mention. We have the specific date of first mention, so let's use it, rather than just rewriting Shoemaker's introductory sentence.
7. Targetting. A minor point, but WriterArtistDC's version contains a number of referencing errors (e.g. "tawny" is on p.923, not p.918).
8. Flow. I maintain that the correct flow of an etymology section on Redskin (slang) is OED (as that was the "official" position for many years until recently), then "red" as a precursor term, then "redskin". Introducing a new subsection to deal with this just clutters what should be a pretty clear section. Bromley86 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

References

Third opinion

When and if a third party agrees to seriously address the issues with this article, I will respond. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not inviting in a 3O to address the issues as a block: that didn't work for us last time. It's better if we deal with our disagreements in bite-sided chunks. Incidentally, I'd appreciate it if you could keep your comments here or in your own section, and I've no problem with you blanking/moving your comments, rather than striking, prior to us actually inviting someone.

As to you not responding until we have a 3O, that wouldn't be particularly helpful. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for them to get up to speed and make a decision, so we can progress with the article. Bromley86 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't re-add your comment to my section, as it'll only be confusing for the 3O. It's actually unnecessary anywhere, as it was a simple 6 vs 9 typo, now corrected. Bromley86 (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If the 3O discussion is going to be falsified by edits in contradiction to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I will not participate, and certainly not under rules you have the delusion can be made on WP, which has no rules. If I cannot revert to the last true version, I can only delete my comment you moved, since it is now meaningless out of context.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a pattern here. You take offense where it is entirely inappropriate, then refuse to participate in discussion. We are getting the 3O ready - it's not been advertised. The only edits I made were to my own additions: (1) to correct an incorrect pointing, and (2) to change 6**->9**. There was no attempt to falsify anything. And, as I said, you deleting your comment is a perfectly sensible thing to do now - no one wants to see strikethrough on irrelevant text messing things up.

I'll give you a day or so to reclaim your toys, and to decide to participate. Otherwise I'll list it, and we'll see what happens. If you truly do care about improving this article, I'd suggest that you make it easy to attract a 3O, but you'll do as you please. Bromley86 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Is being patronizing and insulting your version of assuming good faith? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Is being unnecessarily argumentative and wikilawyering yours? Anyway, let's stick to the subject. Bromley86 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel it is your argumentativeness and wikilawyering that has forced me to abandon my usual openness to discussion. I have edited several controversial articles over my ten year tenure on WP without reaching such an impasse.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I certainly welcome a 3O, and a 4th, 5th, etc...; but I do not see it happening anytime soon. Few would want to jump into this morass given the obscurity of the topic. The 3O guidelines require a two-line statement of the issue written in a neutral fashion, to "make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants". Is this possible? You implied a purpose of limiting the 3O to the issue of the "Red" content, yet your "Reasoning" is more a list of grievances than a statement of objective disagreement that could be easily resolved.

My side of this limited disagreement is: I think the Origins and meaning section should have an introductory subsection on the emergence of "red" as a racial identifier which summarizes Shoemaker (she has also written a book:Nancy Shoemaker (2004). A Strange Likeness: Becoming Red and White in Eighteenth-Century North America.) and Vaughn, plus any other sources of equal quality and relevance that can be found. That the use of "red" is prior too, and provides a context for use of "redskin" should not be a problem, nor should using a chronological order for the presentation of historical content. What I want to take from Shoemaker are her conclusions, not details such as the date of first usage. The content I most recently added was only a few sentences, so there is no reason to exclude any. If my wording is not perfect, that is a reason for further editing, not deletion. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was edited: you chose to not accept that, hence we need someone else's input. I'll copy the above to the 3O section and open the 3O. Bromley86 (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In what way is a reversion not a deletion? Because there is minor overlap between our versions of the content? This provides a good example of wikilawyering.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I edited your original addition here. Note that your addition needed serious editing before it could be retained, in any form, because you'd just cut and pasted from the sources. You reverted my changes (11 days later) here. So I reverted to the pre-addition version, tried to get your agreement on addition of the basic version (being the lowest common denominator), failed, sought 3O. Bromley86 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikilawyering again; presenting evidence to support a claim rather than the relevant fact: my most recent attempt to summarize Shoemaker was not the diff you point to, but July 30, in which I had reworded the July 2 content to paraphrase rather than quote. In the current version of the article this is entirely missing. Placement of the content is of secondary importance. I seek only to have the article include a complete summary of the use of "Red" that establishes the ambiguity of self-identification by some tribes but not others, and reference to the cultural meaning of red vs. skin color, and the likelihood that words used by Indians on formal occasions in order to be understood by white men may not reflect their general usage of a term. The only reason that I can think of to exclude this content is that by comparison, Goddard's generalizations do appear to be oversimplifications, making no allowance for tribal and regional differences and the history of Indian-European diplomacy that occurred between the beginning and end of the 18th century.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, just addressing your assertion that I did not edit, but rather deleted. Bromley86 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My third opinion

I'll respond in this section rather than the previous one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading this page and looking at the diff, my understanding of the dispute boils down to: separate section for "red" versus a paragraph in an existing section. Does that sum it up? I'll weigh in upon confirmation of that question. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Anachronist. Spot on. Bromley86 (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Placement is not the major issue, but content: repeating what I just said above: I seek only to have the article include a complete summary of the use of "Red" that establishes the ambiguity of self-identification by some tribes but not others, and reference to the cultural meaning of red vs. skin color.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

All right then, placement and content. It turns out I am in simultaneous agreement and disagreement with both of you.

• For placement, I like having a separate section. It makes more chronological sense to me to have a discussion of the term "red" as native Americans used among themselves, as a preamble to any discussion of the origins of "redskin". I don't find the argument about undue weight compelling enough to merge this into the Redskin section.
• For content, the undue weight argument has some merit. The separate section as shown in this diff seems a bit more detailed than necessary to me, and could be made more concise. For example, the last sentence in the paragraph could be significantly shortened; all that's really needed is the final clause, "not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians."

For what it's worth, that's my opinion. I'd like to see a separate preamble section about the term "red" before the section about origins of "redskin", and I'd like it to be a bit shorter than what I've seen in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Anachronist, we appear to be in agreement. The final sentence, referring to the Vaughn source, has been in the article for years, so I don't remember if I wrote it originally. The Beothuk reference was definitely before my time, does not really relate to other sources, but adds to a complete picture.

Does this mean you have no problem with the major points from Shoemaker on the origin of "red"?:

1. Time and Place: 1720s in the southeastern US
2. Ambiguity of pre-contact use by some tribes, but adoption of color terminology in response to European usage by other tribes
3. Ambiguity of selection of red for tribe-specific cultural reasons vs. skin
4. Rarity of usage in the northeast except when Indians were in council with the English. Instead, Indians words for themselves in the early 18th century translated as "people"

Shoemaker followed up her journal article with a book which I am currently reading:

• Shoemaker, Nancy (2004). A Strange Likeness: Becoming Red and White in Eighteenth-Century North America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195167929.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I realize I am being repetitious, but given the contentious history here, I want to be clear.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Anachronist. I've added the section as was, removed the sentence clause as you suggested, and rewrote the final part so it wasn't a quote. I also added "mid-" to 1720s, as that's what the source says, and removed Beothuk from the following subsecton.

What I would like to see is an emphasis that the use of red originated with the Indians ("by Native Americans for themselves" is how I'd dealt with it) - always best to be immediately clear on racial issues. Also, any objections to swapping out the JSTOR for Shoemaker for this: I can see some issues, but I usually prefer to have references easily accessible.

There're still copyvio issues ("Instead, from the St. Lawrence to the Upper Mississippi, the word "Indian," when interpreted into native languages, usually came to be equated with the native word for "people," sometimes translated as 'men,' 'real people,' or 'original people." is cut and pasted), but that's easily fixed and I thought we'd get the basic version deployed before addressing that.

Did you have any other suggestions on making it more concise? I'd suggest losing the Louisiana-South Carolina and St Lawrence-Upper Mississippi detail, as anyone visiting this article will just need to know that the SE was different to the NE, and can drill down to the sources if they want more, but if we're retaining a separate sub-section, the rest looks fine to me. Bromley86 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue of copyright violation. This type of quotation is what fair use was intended to allow. As an artist I am more than a little familiar with copyrights.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but typically a quotation is contained in speech marks, no? And your style is one of cut and paste, including inappropriately from WP, such as the original Beothuk entry. That's fine for first drafts, but it makes for clunky and inelegant articles, which is precisely what this one was back in May. Bromley86 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Shoemaker source (regardless of where it's linked), but I do agree that if you're going to put something in quotation marks, you need to have more than just the quotation marks with a footnote, you need actual attribution in the prose to make it clear who's saying what, and not write it as if the quotation is being stated in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup after restoration of "Red" subsection, removal of duplicate content in "Evolved meaning" section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries

@WriterArtistDC. Please don't automatically revert without actually reviewing. In this case, the edit summary said: "Adding current US dictionary use to Body, rm dictionary refs from Lead," which is precisely what I did. I copied the dictionary sentence in its entirety to the body, and I then removed the references from the Lead. No information was lost, no references removed from the article, and it is entirely consistent with best practice on articles. The relevant policy is WP:LEAD.

Your reversion has removed information from the body, so the Lead no longer summarises it. Please review it again and self-revert. Bromley86 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing in WP:LEAD that would require the opening section contain only summaries of information in the body. On the contrary, it states that it should "stand on its own", and implies that given the typical reader's short attention, it provide the essence of the topic. That all the current dictionaries note a pejorative connotation for redskin is a basic fact, and this has been encapsulated in a single sentence. There was no reason to change this.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not currently in the body, as you reverted that addition. To suggest that the Lead should contain information not in the Body is to misunderstand what a summary is. I'd suggest that dictionary definitions are entirely uncontroversial, and so do not require separate support in the Lead, but we can skip that part. Re-adding to Body. Bromley86 (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If something was messed up, it is due to your editing, since it was fine before. Perhaps I incorrectly assumed there was only one unnecessary change, so I reverted it. The sentence is now duplicated, not summarized. Your actions reveal the truth of your thinking that your statements deny: you think you are always correct.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what your actual point is. The Lead should not introduce new information, which it previously did. This is fairly obvious and uncontroversial. As I've said, please don't assume prior to revision: actually look at what you're doing before you automatically do it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What is "obvious and uncontroversial" is that the lead should contain anything that introduces the topic. If you had simply said "the dictionary content also belongs in the Current use section" rather than citing non-existent rules, I would have agreed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's sufficient for the lead to provide a brief overview of the content of the body of the article. Ideally, the lead section should not contain any unique material that isn't also covered in the body. The lead section in an encyclopedia article isn't quite the same as an introduction. Also WP:LEAD specifically says "It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." It's a concise overview that could stand on its own without the article body. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion, phase two

The next issue is the "Native American opinion" section in this version.

I placed the POV tag in May based upon the guideline that an article should contain all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". There has been an effort to remove content by declaring that the sources fail the RS criteria. The most disappointing result has been the opinions expressed on the RS noticeboard that one of these sources, a book by the historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz can be removed because the theory expressed is wp:fringe, but without citing a RS that directly critiques her work or established the "mainstream" theory from which her opinion supposedly departs. The topic of this article has no such mainstream consensus, so I maintain that the minority views must also be represented. WP editors can exclude content that fails many tests for reliability, but if a notable scholar publishes a book in her area of expertise, her opinion cannot simply be dismissed.

In more general terms, can racial, ethnic, and religious minority viewpoints be excluded from articles about these minorities? While there is no "minority" math, physics, or biology, this is unfortunately not true in many of the disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Implicit bias is on display here currently, with the point of view of Native Americans reduced to a single sentence which invalidates them. This does not mean I do not recognize that there are extreme, unfounded "bloody scalp" opinions, but that a NPOV requires inclusion of all opinions with appropriate weight. Goddard argues only that the extreme has no supporting evidence. I have been arguing, without success, that Native American opinion is much more nuanced, with academic support for the view that the English meaning of "redskin" was always disparaging given the history of genocide in colonial America. While I maintain that Dunbar-Ortiz should remain, most of the Native American content can stand without her inclusion.

Again, I placed this content in its own subsection, but am not concerned with its placement. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Referring to "there is no 'minority' math, physics, or biology..." Oh, yes there is, and the hard sciences are actually the main focus of WP:FRINGE, with physics and biology having several associated pseudosciences (intelligent design, free energy, alternative medicine, fad diets, etc.).

Back to the point, I would say that recognized scholarly views should have the most weight if they can be found. I would also say, if scholarly views about any Native American population are described, then it's appropriate to also record the population's response to those views, if such a response exists and isn't just one guy making a statement that may not be representative of the population as a whole. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear. In saying that there is no "minority" hard sciences I meant that there is mainstream consensus that allows WP editors to ignore or briefly dismiss pseudoscience in the main articles on scientific topics and create a separate article on "controversies" if they reach a certain level of public discourse. I see no mainstream consensus here, but Goddard standing alone with rather sweeping generalizations while other say its not that simple.

Native American popular opinion is not limited to activists with a political agenda, but includes the National Congress of American Indians.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You'll be unsurprised to hear that I disagree with the inclusion of the bulk of this. It's speculative fiction cobbled together by those with a very definite motive for making Redskin as toxic as possible. What we currently have in the article:

"A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American. Goddard denies this, and says there is a lack of evidence for the claim."

Specifically (regarding the suggested addition), the first paragraph is meant to (a) establish that there were bounties paid, and (b) that redskin was used in this context, with this being a lead in to the second paragraph that tries to make the case that redskin=bloody scalps. In the case of (a), we don't need to do that, we merely need to make the statement and reference it. The existing version already does this, with "... is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians ...". Regarding (b), the use of the word redskin in these contexts is incredibly tangential - Indian is used far more frequently, with no indication that Redskin was being used any more vehemently. The "evidence" is presented merely to score points.

Regarding the second para, the Dunbar-Ortiz part is easy to deal with, as it's been rejected over on RSN. It was rejected because she brought literally nothing to the table, other than making a single-sentence, unsupported, statement. One that happened to be subtly different to the usual claim made. I suggest that we don't rehash this.

Your King statement (the final sentence) is misattributed, although he does apparently claim that position as well. There's no reason for us to take note of him though: the quote that he gives (which I believe is from someone's blog) starts with the statement that the term that accepts that it "may not directly derive from scalp bounties", but that it doesn't mean that bounties weren't real and prevalent. That's not disputed, but it then goes on to make an unsupported claim.[18] We don't include those in WP.

So we get to attribution. I'm happy to expand what we currently have to note that it first came to public notice during the 1992 Redskins case and refer to Harjo - that's what our sources say. No need to reference Blackhorse specifically. Again though, there's no need for extensive quoting, we can easily summarise it. Perhaps:

"A third controversial etymological claim by some Native Americans is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to their bloody, red scalps. This claim, which is based upon oral history, and which Goddard calls unfounded and unevidenced, was first made by activist Suzan Harjo during the 1992 Washington Redskins trademark case.

BTW, while looking at this, I saw something by Krauthammer.[19] He has his head screwed on right. Bromley86 (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A well-written, moderate view addressed to his fellow conservatives; more rhetorical than logical. He thinks about "redskin" and asserts that he has come to an independent decision about its usage? Bob Costas and Obama came to the same conclusion, but don't listen to them, they are liberals? The Native Americans object to the term, but don't listen to them, they are "playing the race card"? How is this different than Black people decided that they get to name themselves, and white people agreeing because they are "sensitive", they have empathy for their fellow human beings? Many conservatives continued to say "negro" for another generation (which I lived through) because they valued their "tradition" above empathy, but it died out naturally because it was not the name of a football team. "Redskin" would have died out also, except that sports, especially football, is sacred in the US.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain several times, claiming that "redskin" was another name for "bloody scalp" and claiming that scalp hunters called Native American "redskins" when they were killing them, thus establishing its negative meaning from the beginning, are distinct points of view. The former is supported only by Native American claims of oral history, and is directly addressed by Goddard as being unsupported. The latter is supported by academic sources that cite the history of genocide that was the predominant context for Indian-Settler contact (Taylor, Dunbar-Ortiz, Reid). The Stannard source places this pejorative usage of redskin prior to Goddard's benign origin, but merely placing them side-by-side may involve the issue of wp:synth. Other sources either say that Goddard's view is oversimplified (King) or that the historical evidence does not support such conclusions given the paucity of documents, the cultural bias of European writers, and the difficulties of translation (Reid, and Goddard himself notes the uncertainty of translation).

Stucturally, I think King's discussion of the issue could be used as an outline. My notes on his book are here. He presents the "Native Roots" and "Colonial Violence" viewpoints in their own sections, we can do something similar, but go beyond his citation of a single Native American opinion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have previously made that point. Either way, one of those has nothing to do with the origin of the term, and instead belongs in evolving meaning. We currently have 1769 as the first date for the use of redskin, when is the first date of the use of redskin in a bounty context? Looks to me like it's the Daily Republican in 1863, and even then it's not clear that it's being used any more pejoratively than Indian.

I've explained to you that the Stannard source does not say what you hope it does. Have another read of the source, or of the explanation in this section above (last big entry at the end of that section, or search "Re. Stannard, I've explained").

From your notes, despite what I assume is your added emphasis, King doesn't say anything that might be used to question Goddard's work on the origin of the word. However, perhaps better to stick to one disagreement at a time? Bromley86 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I did make an error in the second source supporting Stannard, likely because I actually have the book in my hand, which has not been the case for years. Going from his page 116 to the endnotes, he actually cites a different book (Leach, Douglas Edward (1958). Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip's War. New York: WW Norton & Company. p. 237.). This might have been an opportunity for good faith collaboration to correct the error rather than justification for insults. If Stannard quotes a passage that places "redskin" in 17th century but you do not find it in a source, you are insulting Stannard as well as me. Can I explain how Goddard missed it? I don't have to.

And yes, I highlighted the relevant passage from King that contains a mild rebuke of Goddard. Is there any reason to exclude it? No individual is perfect, that is the reason for including all sources. It is also the reason for correcting errors, not exploiting them to justify condescending insults and meaningless rhetorical advantage. The latter is my reason for generally skimming what you say here much of the time. Perhaps you do the same, since I have indeed made the scalp/bounty hunting distinction previously.

With regard to reverting rather than editing my minor changes, was there some objection to the sentence "The origin of the term "redskin" in English is debated; whether it was first used by Native Americans to refer to themselves, or by colonial settlers in the context of violence against them."?

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

As I've hardly been insulting here, I assume you mean in the original section? I tried to gently correct you - you weren't having any of it (ironically calling me closed-minded as you proceeded to ignore the correction). And please do try to stop prattling on about how offensive everything in the world is. I seem to remember that it was your inability to take criticism (of someone else, no less) that led to this situation.

You've repeatedly said you're not going to discuss, because you feel so gravely insulted. You're now admitting that you just skip read what I say, which explains why you've had so much trouble with my correction of your sourcing, and likely explains why you've blanket reverted my edits, including the uncontroversial ones.

There's every reason to exclude King on Goddard - you've yet to explain why a this "mild rebuke" warrants inclusion. And yes, I do object to your wording regarding the opening of the redskins section. It places too much emphasis on a minor position, one that is introduced a mere 2 paras down anyway. Bromley86 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot make sense of your comments above, given that I have "reverted your edits" in order to restore appropriate content. It is fortunate that others have taken an interest, otherwise we would be at a standstill. So far "3O" has resulted in what I consider progress, with the restoration of one section, and discussion that indicates support for the restoration of the other. The end result may be a somewhat better article, but at the cost of much wasted effort. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This is my proposed replacement of the current final sentence in the Origins section, in order to restore a NPOV.

For Native American scholars and leaders, including the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the term redskin originated in an era of violence, including the practice of paying a bounty for killing Indians, which began in the colonial period and overshadowed any neutral usage. In "American Holocaust" historian David Stannard cites an account from King Philips War (1676). "Hunting redskins for the time being became a popular sport in New England...". The details of paying bounties for the collection of scalps in shown in the proclamation declaring war against the Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by Lieutenant Governor Spencer Phips (and commonly known as the Phips Proclamation). This proclamation specifies the different amounts to be paid for the scalps of adult men, women, and children".

Some Native Americans assert that "redskin" refers directly to the bloody, red scalp or other body part offered as proof to collect this payment, based upon oral history passed down in Native American families. While this claim is associated in the media with litigants in the Redskins trademark case; Amanda Blackhorse and Suzan Shown Harjo, the NCAI support indicates that the belief is widespread. Goddard denies any direct connection to scalping, and says there is a lack of evidence for the claim. For Dr. C. Richard King the lack of direct evidence does not mean that contemporary Native people are wrong to draw an association between a term that empathizes an identity based upon skin color and a history that commodified Native American body parts.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The content is the first task, but I also advocate the addition of subsections as in my draft here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Busy at the moment. I'll have a look at it when I get the chance. Bromley86 (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, had a chance to look at it. It's not an improvement, it is instead an attempt to advance a position ("the NCAI support indicates that the belief is widespread" = OR). We've discussed that Taylor cannot be quoted as saying what you attribute to him. And, again, Stannard is not saying what you think he is, but I can't explain it to you any clearer than I already have. One last try - it was Leach that wrote redskin in 1958, not someone from the 17th century. Feel free to call in a 3O on this. Bromley86 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

While there is discussion on further progress, going back to whittle away at previous progress without discussion, and making other unilateral changes, is not constructive. The "Red" subsection content was agreed upon by 3O. The sources say nothing about Harjo being the "first" to make the claim that redskin=scalp. You may revert these changes, or leave them as testimony that for all your claims of adherence to principles, rules, and accuracy; your behavior betrays there are no such constraints upon your editing, quite the opposite. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, please try to stick to the topic and the facts, rather than focusing on the person. Do you have a specific factual gripe? The changes to the "red" section were all notified here, many days ago. And Anachronist said "... could be made more concise. For example ...", so it's not like they were saying it was perfect as it was. Anyway, there were just 3 changes I made:

(1) I swapped out the url to an online copy, and targeted the refs to the relevant pages.

(2) I edited to remove copyright violations, where you had just cut and pasted from the source.

(3) I removed the river designators - (i) it was perilously close to copyvio, and (ii) it was unnecessary to the casual reader of an article on Redskin (slang). Anyone wanting more detail can easily drill down to the source.

What is it you object to?

Harjo. Goddard's comprehensive look at the origin specifically refers to Harjo when talking about the scalps origin. Now, he doesn't actually say that Harjo was the first public mention, but it is reasonable to infer that she was. The ICT article does link Harjo to the first public awareness of it. Do you have another earlier mention that would invalidate these two sources? Is there a subtle change in the wording that would make it more palatable to you? We could add "public" ("... was first made public by activist ...", as that reflects reality.

The only other edits I made were: removing credentials, which is entirely normal; and trimming an unnecessary quote in response to Elinruby's sic issue. Bromley86 (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

My point is that you assert rules that you are unwilling to observe yourself, as you again demonstrate. Having introduced personal attacks against me early in the discussion, you now say "stick to the facts". You may claim to have corrected this behavior, but it sneaks back in with a condescending comment or turn of phrase. I try to ignore the insults and deal only with content, but you aren't having it. When user conduct gets in the way of discussing facts, it must be addressed, but without insults.

So now you want to add what you find "reasonable to infer" after attempting to use my reasonable summaries of what sources say as evidence of my lack of understanding. It is clear you either have a superficial understanding of a topic I have researched for many years, or you have a personal agenda that prevents such understanding. Regarding the Native American belief in redskin=scalp, you label as OR my proposed language "the NCAI support indicates that the belief is widespread" but want to make the unfounded claim that the belief originated with modern "activists". --WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Returned from vacation to find no activity for ten days. I will proceed with changes proposed above, and if they remain the POV tag may be removed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References