Talk:Squaw/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy

There was an indication that citations are needed for the claim that "squaw" does not mean "cunt", so here and here.--droptone 05:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS BIASED! Just wanted to put that obvious point out there. One of the references is to Squaw Peak's website. That's like saying the Rebel Flag is not bad, and then having a link to "sons of the confederacy" website. There's an obvious subjective slant. Ugabuga

the word squaw referred to the female genetalia, not to the young woman...Men of the tribe did not go ariund calling their women "squaws" anon user

Where is the evidence that the word 'squaw' was ever used in reference to 'vagina' or 'cunt'? Anyone who has read any primary documents knows that the white/euro authors seldom minced words and were very candid in displaying what we recognize today as racist terms. Given that, why has no one to date been able to document a single example of 'squaw' = 'vagina'? If such evidence exists, cite it. The evidence shows that this idea is of recent origin, a creation of uninformed activists minds. Many otherwise neutral words can be USED in a pejorative way.. "It's THEM again", "It's the INDIANS again" Enough real racism exists - we don't make the case better by exaggerating or asserting fanciful claims. Qureus1 10:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As part Algonquin, I'm impressed by the article. My parents didn't have patience with political correctness overlaid upon the language by others, and my mother used squaw freely, meaning a woman, usually one married or of marriageable age. It was often used like the word 'Mrs'.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of evidence is required? How do you site a racial/gender biased word that originated a long time ago, as in pre-information highway (aka internet).

Check this link to Lori Blondeau, a native artist who uses the word "squaw" in her work, she claims its very painful to be called "squaw". As a women I would be upset at being reduced to a "vagina" and have people tell me it means "Mrs.".

Here's evidence of "whatever you want to believe the word means", bottom line, there is some problem with it if its hurting people when they are called it. http://www.canadianart.ca/art/features/2004/12/09/259/

Also, just because a woman uses the word to refer to herself doesn't mean the word isn't sexist, it merely reinforces the fact that women do enforce patriarchy and are prepetators as well as victims in regards to sexism.

See Bell Hooks for further information.

---

In that it refers to female people and not male people how can it be anything but sexist? Jasen betts (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See the sexism article. "Sexist" usually means believing one sex (usually female) is inferior. Merely identifying people as female and male, as you did above, or using such words as "woman" and "man" is generally not considered sexist. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it correct that "at present, the term is often held to be offensive"? Leaving aside the obviously false claims about the origins of the word, why should it be considered offensive? Doesn't it require more than the statement of one person to be regarded as offensive?119.224.91.84 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section of the article cites three dictionaries saying that the word "can be" or "is" offensive, as well as insulting uses of it and more than one person's objections to it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is another example of a Native Indian using the word "squaw" [[1]]. It doesn't look offensive, but it's hard to be conclusive. 87.112.206.1 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the intro paragraph to make it less universal. It had read as though every Native American found "squaw" to be an offensive word. I left it open to some interpretation, but the article contradicts the idea that American Indians are united against the word. First, it's an Algonquin word, and no one except those who speak those languages has any reason to decide which of their words are offensive. (FWIW, the German, Roman, and Iroquoian languages are not Algonquin.) Second, the article explicitly refers to the misunderstanding of the word by those who don't speak one of the Algonquin languages, and it goes on to specifically talk about Algonquin efforts to "reclaim" the word. Controversy aside, imagine if Wikipedia stated that the French found the term "Belle" offensive. We'd squash that, of course, because it's a ridiculous claim credible only to people ignorant of the language. The same thing applies here, and we should give Native Americans as much credit for their languages as we'd give anyone else. Canute (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There have been renewed efforts to make introductory paragraph leave only one possible interpretation of the use of "squaw". An editor who is invovled said I should not simply revert but bring this to the Talk page. Reading the article documents that the word has a legitimate Algonquian etymology as 'woman'. The idea that the word is a slur was launched into many people's minds by Susan Harjo on Oprah Winfrey's program in 1992. Saying something loud enough and often enough can make it true in the minds of many people. But the introduction to the article should still allow for non-pejorative interpretations of the word. I am not saying that the word is not a slur in the minds of many people today, but I am saying that the intro should allow for the historic and linguistic interpretation. Pete unseth (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I just edited the intro paragraph again. I read the cited source for some of the content (by Vincent Schilling) and found that it did not contain support for some of the material for which it was cited, e.g. Inuit. Some of the content for which it was cited was simply not found in the Schilling piece. Also, the piece does not agree with some of the content, but rather disagreed with it. Therefore, I have gently edited this paragraph. The content about the word being seen as offensive is still intact in following paragraphs.

This entire page is an attempt to push a particular agenda, and is in no way an encyclopedic article. To say without qualification that the term is a offensive is without foundation in the real world. First there are countless sources that say the whole controversy is made up (https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/the-word-squaw-offensive-or-not/) and more importantly in the real world, the word is used without offense in everyday conversation, in both place names, discussing history and in movies. Wikipedia is not the place to push an agenda, it's intended to be a repository of knowledge. The opening paragraph should simply say "Squaw is the term that has been used since the 17th century to refer to women of the native tribes of North America. There is linguistic uncertainty as to the origin of the term, and some now consider it to be offensive because of one interpretation of that origin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.206.189 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

25AUG2020: Given the heated debate, it would be more evenhanded to state that the term is controversial, than present text which says it is a offensive slur (without caveat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC03:C780:DD17:8FB7:DEC5:84C5 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - it is not the job of an encyclopedia to determine if a word, as commonly used, is or is not offensive or derisive. Furthermore, words on their own are not insulting or derisive --- to get there you must have context because yes...Context matters - always has and always will. And even the most controversial words that are "widely understood" to be insulting and derogatory, do not have a universally defined default context (think the N-word). The best any of us can hope to do - if we are genuinely interested in making Wikipedia a good place for learning - is to merely state the multitude of views out there and let the consumer decide. Otherwise, WP will continue its metamorphosis into a ramrod for one group or another to peddle their particular ideology. --- VeritasS (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it appalling that wiki has chosen to determine what is appropriate use of language and what is not, I grew up on Vancouver Island in the center of three native communities and squaw was and STILL IS used by people here - NATIVES and whites - to mean native woman. There WAS a term for men but it WAS racist and used that way, the word is'chug.' So PLEASE stop with this one sided agenda of removing words from our language because a few don't like them, and stop trying to push non racist words like 'squaw' as racist, you insult every native and every person that uses the word as it was meant. Stop giving the few the power to control the voices of the many. 2001:569:BC3F:FB00:DD97:D6E6:B162:48AA (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Greedy" white man?

"Although labelling 'white man' as greedy was not without foundation".

I don't understand how THIS is not a racist statement.

Replace any other racial group for "white man", and it would be considered racist.

This should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.162.143.5 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

It should perhaps be rephrased a little—"Although using 'greedy' to mean 'white' man is understandable" or some such. However, I think that whole paragraph could go. It's enough to show that Sanders and Peek were wrong. If anything is needed, maybe it's a parenthetical note that wasichu literally means "one who takes the fat", and readers can draw their own conclusions about S. and P.'s reliability. After all, we Americans sometimes use "Caucasian" with the same meaning. A translation into Iroquois might just note that it means "white" without adding that it literally means "from the Caucausus mountains". I'll wait a little while before I do this, though, in case anyone objects. —JerryFriedman 17:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got started editing and couldn't wait. If anyone objects, we can resolve it. —JerryFriedman 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of citeneeded tags

I put the two tags back in this sentence:

During the 1970s, some American Indian activists objected to the term, and a number of false etymologies emerged, apparently arising from the assumption that European settlers had always regarded Native women as easy sexual partners, and that, therefore, the word "squaw" must have been equivalent with the English word "vagina."

There's no citation below that there were a number of false etymologies, or that Europeans thought Native women were "easy", or that "squaw" must have meant vagina or vulva. In fact, without citations after two months, all those claims should probably be deleted. But I'll wait a little longer. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Squat?

This sentence appears in the article, seemingly apropos of nothing:

One author, for example, described the "universal" Indian squaw as "squat, angular, pig-eyed, ragged, wretched, and insect-haunted" (Steele 1883).

Why this appears, I can't tell, unless someone confused the English word "squat" with the Algonquin word "squaw". It otherwise seems to have nothing to do with the article. If we can't figure out what/why/how it contributes, it should be deleted.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it to show the complete quotation—I hope that makes the relevance clear. I'm glad you added the citeneeded tags, by the way. Soon it will be time to remove that material unless it's supported. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rarity of spelling

Is it worth mentioning in the article that it is the most widely-known non-onomatopoeic English word in common use that contains both a q and a w? The reason is that W is not used in Latinic languages and Q is not used in Germanic ones, so only words from outside those origins in English would use both letters. The only other words using both are either onomatopoeic (e.g., squawk) or less common loan-words (e.g., Qawwali). Grutness...wha? 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not jumping out at me as something that needs to be in the article—just one man's my opinion. It would certainly need a citation. By the way, Q does occur in a few English words of Anglo-Saxon origin, such as "quake", "queen", "quick", "bequeath", as it does in modern German, such as Qual and quellen, so the explanation isn't that simple. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Asimov

The line about Asimov has troubled me enough that I've returned to it a couple of times. I'm starting to feel it's not appropriate for the topic.

• The quote gives no reference to the story.
• The date given is 1950 which is more than 300 years later after the white man recorded the use of squaw meaning a woman of age.
• In the science fiction story the term Earthie-squaw supposedly insulting, but

• we don't know wha kind of science fictional world it is.
• we don't know if the offending word is Earthie, squaw, or the combination.

Finally, the relationship to the topic is tenuous at best. It's not historical but fictional, and science fiction at that. For all we know, Earthie-cowboy might have been insulting in the story as well.

It's more a topic for the talk page. I'd like us to consider either removing the line or moving it here.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the novel will be Asimov's 1950 novel Pebble in the Sky, which had a character called Claudy. I don't have a copy of it, so I can't check the quote. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed Pebble, and the reference is in the References section. By the way, there's a "limited preview" available at Google Books, if anyone wants to check the quotation. How did we live before Google Books?

The quotation isn't in the part of the article about the origin of squaw. It's in the part about derogatory uses and statements that the word is derogatory in the 19th and 20th centuries but before the "vagina" claims. A quotation from 1950 is appropriate in that section.

If you want to learn a little about what kind of science-fictional world it is without reading the whole novel (though it's short and has its good points), you could look at Pebble in the Sky. (I just linked the reference in this article to that article, which I should have done earlier.)

"Earthie" by itself does seem to be insulting in Pebble. "Squaw" doesn't occur in the book except in this compound (twice—the second occurrence doesn't shed any light). I think it's pretty clear that "squaw" makes the term more "richly insulting" than the mere "Earthie girl". The male equivalent, by the way, is "Earthie-buck", if that helps. There aren't any other compounds with "Earthie".

Indeed it's science fiction, but science-fiction writers use the words of their time (mostly). It seems to me that Asimov's use of "squaw" as an insult of the imagined distant future shows that he heard insulting connotations in it in the real 1950. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Jerry. I've read a fair amount of Asimov including the bloody long Trilogy, but hadn't read Pebble.

Before proceeding, I need to mention I'm part Algonquin, and my grandmother freely used 'squaw' among her friends, the word having no pejorative meaning before her time. The earliest claim of a negative meaning seems to be 1990s, possibly 1970s, so I suspect it's more likely Asimov fabricated the term, much like John Brunner used current words (slit and shiv) as derogatory words in his novels. (Brunner went to far as to create a fictionalized dictionary. Very clever author, by the way.)

Asimov was born in Russia, grew up in a Jewish Brooklyn neighborhood, and remained there until the late 1950s when he moved to Boston. Algonquin lands covers roughly the eastern half of the US and Canada, so he wouldn't have encountered negative use there. I'm becoming convinced he used it as a "term of art", a fictional construction to further his story.

At best, I feel the Asimov reference is an interesting footnote, not an indication the term was used outside his novel. After all, this is futuristic science fiction. In a vacuum of other sources, it's possible Asimov's use created a circular self-justifying reference, to wit: A writer of speculative fiction used the term in a science fiction story, therefore the term must have been in use.

This use wouldn't pass any kind of academic review. What options do we have if we choose to keep the reference, but not give it etymological credence?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see two issues that are important for the article. The first is whether "squaw" was used derogatorily before the late 1970s or '90s. It definitely was, as the article shows. Your comment on this prompted me to do some more research, which is a good thing, and I added two more examples today. I see more by searching on "call her a squaw", and I think I'm about to add a significant one from a Mohawk writer. However, most early uses seem to be neutral or include hostility that's hard to tell from prejudice against Indians or women. For instance, there's a lot of someone calling a man or boy a squaw as a taunt, especially for supposed cowardice. For another, "Like a squaw or a dog, poor Lizzie Blennerhasset followed Long Dick." (The Living Age, by Eliakim Little, 1876). I can't tell whether there's some special connotation in the word "squaw" or whether the author just thought Native women were servile (as he makes clear later on the same page). So for many the word was neutral, as it was for your grandmother; for some it was derogatory.

The other important issue is whether the Asimov quotation should be in the article. Of course it's a "fictional construction to further his story", as you put it, but I still think it's good evidence for the connotations at the time—why wouldn't Asimov have constructed "Earthie-wench" or some such, except that he felt that "squaw" added extra insult? (And I strongly suspect that Brunner used "slit" and "shiv" in accordance with their meanings and connotations.) But it's less important now that we have more examples. Maybe a footnote, as you mentioned, would be a good compromise.

As a side issue, in New York Asimov was probably as likely to meet Mohawk speakers as speakers of any Algonquin language, and the Mohawks are precisely the people who came up with the incorrect etymology. Indeed, the only Mohawk man I know has assured me that it's true, as he learned in childhood ('60s or maybe late '50s), and suspects that a Mohawk traveler or trader was in Massachusetts to meet the Pilgrims and be responsible for the 1622 citation. But it seems far more likely to me that the tone he saw in the word came from what he read and heard from whites, and would have been the same in any other part of the country. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Jerry. I suspect using 'squaw' in the context you mention is probably like saying "You throw like a girl," or saying a boy is a sissy or old woman. It's probably a gender zing rather than racial.

I didn't follow your last paragraph, where the Mohawks are said to have come up with incorrect etymology. My understanding is that Plains Indians (and Western Indians) floated the incorrect etymology, unless you meant something different. In the paragraph you quote ("Poor little Wanda"), were you able to interpret a meaning?

I don't have a Larousse/Hachette dictionary handy to dig into the first use, but Cassells (college) French dictionary lists 'squaw' as being "Indian woman". French explorers often explored place English settlers hadn't gotten to and they would have had a good notion.

I've been impressed that Wikipedia has managed to avoid hysteria in this article. Some older generation Indians have been upset to see the word misunderstood and misused, and I'm glad we make the effort to get it as right as we possibly can.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lots of gender insults. "An Abenaki who spoke English cried out: ' If you are so bold, why do you stay in a garrison house like a squaw ? Come out and fight like a man !'" Parkman, The Jesuits in North America in the Seventeenth Century.

The "genital" etymology arose because "squaw" resembles the last syllable of the Mohawk word for vagina (or is it vulva?). The Mohawks would have noticed this before anyone else. I don't know who Sanders and Peek were, but I have to imagine they heard this etymology from a Mohawk.

On Pauline Johnson, I think that at that time mention of a woman's reputation and her virtue, otherwise unspecified, means her chastity. When the hero's friends call Wanda a squaw, it doesn't seem that Johnson means they're calling her incompetent or a liar or a thief or anything like that. So to Johnson, "squaw" meant a promiscuous woman, and I think it's possible, though not certain, that she believed it came from the word for vagina in her tribe's language—something she could never have ment.ioned in print.

I agree with you that there's a lot of biased stuff on this subject and it's important for this article to be calm and neutral, so I'm glad you think it is. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Jerry. The Mohawk would have been a subset of the broader Algonquin/Iroquoian. The -skwa suffix was merely a feminine ending, a little like -elle en françois but not as broad in, say, Latin. I suspect the descendents of Plains Indians misinterpreted the suffix, which resulted in the current controversy.

Although I'm not very familiar with the concept, some tribes were reputed to have accepted effeminate males who worked with women rather than men. Supposedly they were called men-skaws, which wasn't an insult, per se, but could be interpreted out of context as one. I have no direct knowledge, so I consider it anecdotal.

I lean toward conservatve interpretations, having grown up where negative connotations were unheard of. It's a pity the Old Ones didn't take the controversy seriously and speak up while the could.

Thanks for your scholarship, Jerry. Let's demote the Asimov reference because I think your contributions are more pertinent.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. (And my stack of colons fell over.)

From what I read, the Algonquian and Iroquoian languages are entirely unrelated (despite cultural similarities between tribes in the same region). Thus the fact that an Iroquoian word for "vagina" has what appears to be an Algonquin suffix meaning "woman" is a total coincidence, like Nahuatl chāntli, house, and Canadian French chantier, a lumberjack's cabin. (The latter is more likely the source of "shanty".) Ahem. Where was I? Yes, total coincidence. So it would be natural for Iroquois speakers to misunderstand English speakers calling Iroquois women "squaws".

I too have heard of Native men who lived as women; no doubt if they lived now, some would get surgery. I suspect that if we looked into it, some tribes accepted the practice and some forbade anything remotely resembling it. A brief mention with references wouldn't hurt the discussion of "squaw-man" in this article in my opinion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Beetle Bailey comics character

One of the characters who appears in the Norwegian issues of Beetle Bailey, sub-section "Rødøye" (lit. "Red-eye") is a woman named "Squawmamma" ("Squaw-mom"). Does this term apply only to the US/UK? Cid SilverWing 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to have a brief section about uses in other languages. I see the word has been adopted in Italian, for instance. The Norwegian comic-book character could go there if properly sourced.

Do I understand correctly? Beetle Bailey (renamed "Billy", apparently a clever Norwegian pun) comes out in comic books in Norway. those books contain other stories as well, including one called "Rødøye", and that story (which has nothing to do with Beetle Bailey or Mort Walker) has a character named "Squawmamma". And is she American Indian? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic map

File:Femme algoquien.png -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That map is extremely interesting and relevant. Why is it not in the article? --Doric Loon (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely should be in the article, although it seems the self-appointed censors here would not want to include any information indicating that squaw may have originated as a non-offensive indigenous word for women. Crescent77 (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The map and its sources do not directly state anything about the word "squaw". If the data is somehow relevant, you will need to find an independent reliable sources that presents that interpretation of the primary data. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Really now? Not relevant? The article discusses what the map illustrates. Crescent77 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clarify. Of the 20 or so words in about as many languages located on this map, I found one mentioned in the article. So is 95% of what it shows completely irrelevant? Why not expand the map to include words for "woman" used in Mexico, Europe and Africa? Perhaps the map should include the words for "woman" in hundreds of other languages throughout the area shown that are also unrelated? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The opening of the article, second paragraph, goes into a somewhat peculiar discussion of Algonquin morphemes meaning "woman". The map illustrates those morphenes, many of which were specifically mentioned. Crescent77 (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me revise that, you are correct, only the one Massachusettes word is specifically mentioned. But my point still stands : the map is a relevant illustration to the Algonquin morpheme discussion. Crescent77 (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a huge deal, but...

The last sentence in the "Claims of Obscene Meaning" section has the word "otsikwa" referenced, while previously it is referenced as "otsiskwa". I thought about changing it, but I'll leave it up to someone more knowledgeable than myself to clarify this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronburro (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

canada?

Why is this page under canadian indigenous people? I know for a fact "squaw" was used in tribes in other parts of north america. it was used often in the book "Panther In The Sky," about Tecumseh, a shawnee, who remained mostly in today's United States territory. and by the way, it was never used as a synonym for genitalia....I have never heard it that way before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.180.103 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

This article has recently received some heavy editing from members of a university class whose course is entitled "Race, Femininity and Representation" and who were encouraged to edit by their professor. I'm not sure if the class was covered by our scheme for such things or whether they winged it but, either way, someone with more knowledge of the subject than me should probably review recent changes for possible undue weight etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Now reverted by Nyttend. Thanks for looking at it. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Besides the reason that I gave in the edit summary, advancing the "this is evil" point of view, the class seemed to have no idea that this is a US topic as well; they had converted it into something almost purely Canadian. I'm not the most knowledgeable on the subject either; I could just see that the overall result was negative. There may be some positive changes that should be restored. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Poor citations

Someone has added names and years in brackets at the end of certain sentences as a means of sourcing them. This is not how citations work. You can choose to keep it short like that, but at least providing a page number is the bare minimum. It's currently unverifiable and not helpful. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring to preserve slur

@Pete unseth: Really? Do you go to other racial slur pages and argue that, since only minority populations are harmed by them that only "some" see them as offensive, or that since it's only "recently" that these populations have gotten some degree of access to mainstream coverage that the historical views of them should still predominate?[2] You said you didn't want to edit war, but that is precisely what you are doing. I'll also be adding other sources, since you don't seem to think the current ones are sufficient. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the sourcing here, I reiterate what I've said in edit summaries: Pete, If you think it's not clear that there is overwhelming consensus on how offensive this is, you are simply not reading the sources we've already cited, as well as the very first dicdefs that come up in google searches. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Trying to address this slowly and by Wikipedia rules. The source that was cited as confirmation that the word is overwhemingly pejorative, the article by Schilling, is very clear that there is no consensus on this even among Native Americans. Also, the article does not include the Metis and Inuit. I left intact the section about it's mostly recent pejorative connotations (especially after the Oprah Winfrey incident). Also, I left intact the scholarly section on the etymology of the term, meaning "woman". The intro needs to be a general introduction to the topic, despite the fact that some feel strongly about one interpretation. Also, the deletion of the category suggests loss of NPV, since the origin is a simple loanword for "woman", though the connotations are now changing. Please let the intro include the very genuine differences, including the Native American woman quoted in Schilling's article, "I understand the concern of Indian women who feel insulted by this word, but I respectfully suggest that we reclaim our language rather than let it be taken over."Pete unseth (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you prioritizing Schilling's article? It's far from the best source, and we could easily cut it. You did something very odd and inappropriate with your edit. You removed better sources, that quote several Indigenous women academics, and then moved Schilling's very brief article up, and then cut the content that had been sourced, with the reason that Schilling didn't source it (!). That is truly bizarre. Read the other, much better, sources, and take the time to understand them, before attempting going further with this disruptive editing. What you did was deceptive. Actually, the only lack of consensus Schilling indicates is about the "origins" ("The jury is still out as far as where squaw originated from" - and if Vince thinks this is unclear, he hasn't thoroughly studied the linguistics. Honestly, I think the piece is just clickbait). You even misread the subtitle of the piece. The article is basically useless as a source as we have all the other sources cited in more detail in the article. You aren't even reading that brief, pop culture, unsourced blurb correctly. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

While I am trying to discuss this on the Talk page rather than editing the article, as you suggested, you continue to edit the intro to make it more strongly support your point of view. You accused me of edit warring; I am not sure of a precise definition of edit warring, but your actions seem closer to edit warring than mine. In my editing, I was trying to keep the cited sources, though moving them. If I lost some, my sincere apologies. Some content was originally sourced as based on Schilling, so I removed it, such as Inuit. Schilling did not mention the Inuit. In addition to what he cited as lack of consensus on the etymology, Schilling showed there is lack of consensus on attitudes toward the word. "I understand the concern of Indian women who feel insulted by this word, but I respectfully suggest that we reclaim our language rather than let it be taken over." As far as the etymology of the word "squaw", historical linguists reached consensus long ago. The question for us now is whether the word is only seen as pejorative and as a slur, not its etymology. The Native American I just quoted from Schilling's article is an example of a Native American who believes that the word should not be seen as a slur. I think this supports my call to have a more neutral introduction, but include strong claims that it is a slur in the body of the article. Let's keep talking. Pete unseth (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said about Schilling as a source. "Native American, First Nations, Inuit and Métis" is how we write about the Indigenous North American communities when we name them individually, instead of with a shorthand, pan-Indian term. Just look to the right of the opening text, at the info box. It is how we write about these communities when we write on this topic. Again, you are privileging a brief, inferior source and then complaining that it doesn't source the content. Read. The. Sources. You are revert-warring, and you deleted an excellent source that quoted multiple Native women who are experts in this field, either because you don't want their views represented here, or because you simply clicked "undo" and returned to an earlier version. I strongly suspect you aren't reading any of these in-depth sources. One person quoted in Schilling's brief, derivative pop piece does not outnumber all the other WP:RS sources we have here, sources that clearly indicate an overwhelming consensus that this English word is nothing but a slur. Even Schilling does not indicate that this English word is used in-community. I can assure you, Native people do not use this word in English. It's seen as abhorrent. Re-read what I said. You are not getting it. Let me state it clearly: The English word Squaw is only a slur. The only words that aren't a slur are not the English word this article is about. The only words any Natives are defending are other words in Indigenous languages that are simply related to this word. This English language word is seen as a hideous slur. If you are getting another impression from the sources, you are having a comprehension issue and you are attempting to misrepresent the sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The word 'squaw' does not occur in any indigenous language in North America. No Native American or FNIM in thei right mind uses the term. We did not coin it, it is a linquistic bastardization that has been used derogatorily throughout history. Shilling is not an indigenous linguist nor is he an indigenous woman, he is the author or a click bait piece that far to much weight is trying to be put on. This is absolutely ridiculous. There are excellent sources already standing, I cannot believe this point is even being argued. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ooops... "An Algonquian word meaning woman" https://www.thefreedictionary.com/squaw— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.91.25 (talk • contribs) 14:32, February 28, 2020 (UTC)

Oops. More completely: "An Algonquian word meaning woman, used, offensively, to mean a Native American woman." That's according to an user created site, citing the "Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words". If you dig up a copy of that book, verify that it says that and demonstrate that it is a reliable source, we might have something. I can't say I'm familiar with the publisher, "Diagram Group", and the listing on Amazon certainly doesn't scream "academic publisher" to me. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Algonquian is a language base, containing at least 30 dialects and sub-dialects https://www.atlas-ling.ca/feature_map http://www.native-languages.org/famalg.htm. Which dialect or sub-dialect? I have seen it attributed to the Massachusee(N dialect) however this is inaccurate. For example, the word for woman found in Josiah Cotton's Vocabulary of the Massachusetts (or Natick) Indian Language is eshqua, https://www.nipmuclanguage.org/uploads/5/0/7/7/50775337/cottons_indian_vocabulary.pdf page 12. In John Eliot's The Indian Grammar the word for woman is noted as mittamwassis https://archive.org/details/indiangrammarbeg00elio/page/8/mode/2up/search/woman page 9. Both books are attributed to the Massachusee language but neither use the word squaw. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete, the pronunciation in dialect when it comes to say, Narragansett or Abenaki isn't the same as one pronounces the slur. The use of an in context in language in culture word or portion of a word or term that sounds similar to the english language squaw is not the same as my saying to my friend or neighbor, "Hey squaw, let's go get a cup of coffee." That would be appalling and not something that happens in community. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Some have complained that Wikipedia is losing editors because of unfriendly (or worse) responses from other editors. Let's strive to edit accurately, respectfully, and kindly.Pete unseth (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that in most contexts the word 'squaw' is not even remotely offensive. But this page has obviously been hijacked by gender activists who insist that the term is now "universally" considered to be "highly offensive". This page is an absolute joke and needs to have its neutrality disputed. 174.212.7.87 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of insulting other users, please offer any reliable sources you have in support of your position. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I just looked up one of the sources that is invoked five times in the article. The source is only a statement of a position, making linguistic claims that serious scholars like Ives Goddard have shown to be incorrect. It is a brief, inferior source. "http://www.main.nc.us/wncceib/squaw.htm |title=SQUAW - Facts on the Eradication of the "S" Word |accessdate=2017-12-10 |publisher=Western North Carolina Citizens For An End To Institutional Bigotry|quote=When people ask "why now?" explain that: Through communication and education American Indian people have come to understand the derogatory meaning of the word. American Indian women claim the right to define ourselves as women and we reject the offensive term squaw." I plan to delete the source, so I thought it only appropriate to warn y'all. Pete unseth (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not an inferior source. It is one that counteracts systemic bias. It is an educational site that has archived resources from The American Indian Movement. It is a prime example of how Native Women's voices need to be represented on this topic, not colonial ones. Reading the text there, and the background in this article, should make it clear to you why Indigenous articles sometimes have to rely on sites like this, and why they are often more accurate than misinformation collected by non-Native men who happened to get a position in academia. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not comfortable with an article that is biased toward white washing a word that is absolutely viewed by NA/FNIM folks as a slur. The words of indigenous women are necessary when it comes to a word that has a historically and contemporary derogatory use tied to it. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Another source that quotes members of AIM. Adding later on. "From Negro Creek to Wop Draw, place names offend - Demeaning names were often given to areas settled by ethnic or racial minorities". - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole article seems biased and has a condescending tone, while using heavily loaded words (”universally offensive”). The source discussed above is obviously a politically charged advocacy site, so anything taken from there should be taken in that light. Claims that a word – any word – has some sort of universal, immutable meaning that can be ”understood” is factually wrong. Instead, words mean what people take them to mean, making them fuzzy and subjective. Notions of offensiveness are fundamentally arbitrary and subject to change with the passage of time, and can also be intentionally manipulated for i.e. political aims. Such meanings cannot be unilaterally decided by any one party. Word games, however, are one form of power and are quite prevalent in the world today, which is why one should do one's best to try to find neutral sources, not ones that advocate a position. Zillious (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There have been discussions about the writings of Vincent Schilling, some rejecting the viewpoints expressed under his name. The website where it is posted is identified as belonging to the "National Congress of American Indians". Such a website seems to have credibility. Also, Dr. Marge Bruchac (identified on the U of Penn website as Abenaki), writes of "the efforts of otherwise well-meaning people to remove the word 'squaw' from the English language." I think these voices deserve to be listened to, regardless of what other people think.Pete unseth (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. ICTMN is in flux and has been sold (twice now?) since that article was published. Staff articles over the past few years are written by the non-Native writers who came over from Playboy. Bruchac currently identifies as a descendant. These minority views are addressed in the body of the article. Ongoing arguments that non-Natives are unaffected by the slur are systemic bias issues. WP has a policy of addressing systemic bias. We don't put "hey, some people don't mind" in the lede of all slurs. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response intended to be gentle: What does it mean "Bruchac currently identifies as a descendant"? Is this a separate category from being a Native American? Does this mean her opinion is not gvien weight? Also, an earlier editor wrote, "These minority views are addressed in the body of the article." They used to be addressed directly. But I am not sure where in the article these views are now addressed. Also, in a previous post, the same editor objected to a website as being inferior and not authoritative. This may have been correct. But I am not sure on what basis the following website is seen as authoritative: http://www.main.nc.us/wncceib/squaw.htm. I am NOT trying to say that the article needs to remove the fact that the word is now often seen as pejorative. I am saying there should be room to say that it is not universally and automatically pejorative. The speaker on Oprah Winfrey's program who proclaimed "squaw" to have a nasty sexual etymology was speaking out of emotion not an understanding of etymology and historical linguistics. Goddard has spoken to that, quietly and factually. Not sure that this approach is seen as weighty as loudness. Still seeking amicable dialogue.Pete unseth (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

-ess

At best, it is similar in tone to the words "Negress" and "Jewess,"[18] which treat non-white women as if they were second-class citizens or exotic objects.

1. Since when are (the vast majority of) Jews non-white? This may have been the majority view, but it isn't now, and yet treat is in present tense.

2. -ess is definitely a personal suffix (in fact, most non-persons don't need the male/female distinction). Is calling a female waiter "waitress", a female actor "actress", or maybe, along these lines, a female Englishman Englishwoman—objectifying? It seems that someone made too much of forms like lioness.

This needs some clarification. I remember having heard that Jewess is now taboo (Negress would be anyway, because Negro mostly fell out of polite use), but here, the facts about what's actually changed seem to be intertwined with the feminist perspective on what further changes should be. 37.190.146.24 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Status of current efforts to change, or retain, place names

Discuss it here. Don't edit war. Until this is resolved, it stays at the stable version, which includes the list of place names that still include the slur. I am personally neutral on whether or not we include the list. On the one hand, I find the list of names offensive to look at. On the other hand, I agree that it is relevant to know how successful or unsuccessful the efforts to change the names have been. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been disagreement as to whether to include a list of place names that have retained names with "Squaw". A recent edit by Richard-of-Earth was headed with, "Contentious. Wikipedia is not a hall of shame for places that have not complied with some standard." I agree with it being contentious. Many would reject the "hall of shame" concept, and say that the retention of these look-standing names demonstrates a rejection of the idea that "squaw" is automatically pejorative. I agree that it is not clear if retaining this paragraph is relevant, regardless of how the paragraph might be interpreted. Pete unseth (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that the section is, or is not, a "Hall of Shame"; rather, the section discusses the efforts to change placenames, and includes examples of sites where the names have, and have not, been changed. The fact that the term is an offensive slur is already abundantly-sourced and is not what is being discussed here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That section is unsourced WP:OR. Yes, we could research each of the listed names, determine that the name refers to the topic of this article and determine if the name was still officially unchanged as of the date listed. We could do a lot of things. We should not, however, be generating material that is not found in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Several of the names are already mentioned earlier in the section with citations that there are attempts to change the names. That is an appropriate inclusion in that section. If there is no citation that someone is actively trying to change the name there is no basis to mention the place in that section. To create a list of place names that include squaw in them becomes a bit of a indiscriminate list. But perhaps not. Perhaps what is bothering me is that way it is presented. There are disambiguation pages that list every place that has a word in its name. Since there is not a disambiguation page for squaw, can we just make a separate section that neutrally presents places with the name squaw in them with mentioning that they have not changed yet? Special:Search/intitle:squaw currently produces 89 results, many of them places. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think what we need here is for those of us committed to this article to go through and make sure the place names section, as well as the articles we link to in the section, are up to date, especially in terms of sourcing and any name change efforts. I agree that lists tend to not only be indiscriminate, but they tend to attract unresearched content and people forget to maintain them properly, as has apparently happened here. So... cleanup:

• Cutting the duplicate names from the list that are already mentioned in the section above about name change efforts
• Checking all the articles listed. If the articles are accurate and up to date, it is simple enough to pull a solid source from each of those articles and
• Add that source to the remaining place names
• Then convert the list to a paragraph or more that briefly contextualizes the content and any ongoing efforts, or lack thereof.

Would that cover the concerns? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-ordering of page

My apologies for thinking content was removed. The fact that sections were blanked in some edits, and added back in later edits, was confusing. But I don't think it's preferable to have two sections on history before the Current Status section, if nothing else because those sections still need massive cleanup. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

While I understand the reasoning for chronological order, In this case I think it's important to lead with current status, as historical sections still need cleanup, and there's an ongoing issue with readers putting Natives in the past, instead of seeing them as living cultures with current, ongoing concerns and agency. I'm willing to attempt cleanup on sourcing, but am not attached. @Indigenous girl: if you'd rather, I'll wait for you to take a pass at it. This has been calling for cites for years, with some of these cited books not even listed. Either way, it's long overdue. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the order. I concur with Corbie. I also removed the botanical references as I don't feel they are necessary and the continued use of the terms are not thought to be controversial in community. They are, in fact, still labels used in ethnobotany.Indigenous girl (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It's very problematic when the go to is to past tense us first. Leading with contemporary issues is important and I appreciate your thoughtfulness regarding that Corbie.Indigenous girl (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and start the clean up. I'm not feeling well and would appreciate it!Indigenous girl (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try to fix the sourcing problems and do some cleanup; this is long overdue. I'll put up the in use template to avoid edit conflicts. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The history section is sparse now, but what we put in needs to be sourced to WP:RS standards. Hopefully we can work on that now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Written by activists

This article has some obvious advocacy and campaigning problems. It's full of non-encyclopedic, activistic wording like "And the history and depth of this slur is now too long, and too painful, for it to ever take on a positive meaning among Indigenous women or Indigenous communities as a whole." Another example: "The term squaw is now universally offensive due to its use for hundreds of years in a derogatory context." There are many others. Judgement-laden, subjective claims like this must be attributed, if included at all. They generally also should be balanced by opposing or at least contrasting viewpoints. (I'm not sure many would be easily found in reliable sources that are current, though.) The "When people say .... When people ask ...." material is especially inappropriate. Having it in a block quotation is not some loophole to get around WP:NOT#HOWTO and our neutrality policy. See the articles on the n word and its non-rhotic derivative for better examples of how to approach an article like this.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 20:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This series of edits by CorbieVreccan seems to have been a significant turning point in the article, including the addition of much of the content you are challenging. Perhaps they can shed some light. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

AReaderOutThataway, I appreciate your intent here, but the sections you find objectionable are attributed and cited, so it's very odd for you to say that they are not. This could give one the impression that you haven't read the article and sources. This is a very loaded, misogynist and racist slur, according to the abundant sources in the article. Yes, like writing about the n word, there are strongly opinionated writings about the slur, due to these facts, and those are cited. But, unlike "nigga", there is no slang alternative to this term that is OK in some contexts. It is also fairly common for non-Natives to not know the history of this term and how offensive it is. There are even non-Natives who think this is a neutral word, and periodically they show up here and raise these objections. Please read the sources. Possibly some formatting changes could help. But much of what you're bringing up here is actually not accurate for how the article is already sourced. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Without direct quotes attributed, there were sections that were implied to be in WP's voice, not the voice of advocates, activists, or others speaking to the topic. When some of that was added in, it was on the fly either in collaboration with others, or when I was very tired and meant to come back later and do more work on it. You were right to point out the voice/tone problems. I fixed the tone/voice problem, at least where I caught it. If I missed some, point it out or take a run at it. Sorry for misunderstanding what you meant above; I thought you meant the content was unsourced. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Your squaw is on the warpath"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIXBEChRXmo --105.4.6.35 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the song exists. To say anything about it in this article, we would need a reliable source discussing its use of the word, much like Sergeant, Pepper, Loneliness, Heart, Club and Band don't have much to say about Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Marge Bruchak

Marge Bruchak, an Abenaki woman, wrote an article at http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html to complain about "gutting native American languages in the name of political correctness." She is a traditional storyteller and historical consultant who knows many elders and speakers. She claims that "squaw" is a phonetic rendering of a respectful term that means (in Algonquian) "the totality of being female." It has nothing to do with female anatomy, and in particular nothing to do with female private parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.25.41.70 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The site seems to be little more than a forum. While Bruchak is entitled to her opinions, I don't see anything to indicate this is just that: one person's opinion. Wikipedia is not a collection of individual opinions. Please see WP:SPS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We would need citations establishing that she is a notable historical consultant. From her site she has done work in the area. Although we would have to ask what does adding her opinion add to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources

The statement from the American Indian Movement is not a random blogger post. It's a statement that was published in several places, and archived online. And how does a published book "fail verification"? Reverted. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted the organization appears to be notable. Regardless, it's primary/blog and we dont use WP:WIKIVOICE for WP:PRIMARY, whether or not it might be a notable organization. I suppose you can rework the wording and it can be included if it is attributed, but not in wikivoice. Don't re-add disputed content without consensus, you can always do an RfC or take it to WP:RSN. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The text is not presented in WP's voice. It sources the content. There is no reason to delete sources here. You are deleting consensus content, have no consensus for the changes you are making, and have not addressed why you claimed a published book "failed verification". None of these are blogs, and you are not improving the article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am new to this article. Please show said consenus on these talk pages. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

These cited sources should be included. To remove them is an attempt to censor the conversation, and Wikipedia is not censored nor should cited material be removed because it disagrees with particular POV you are trying to push here. Yuchitown (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

it definitely belongs. I hope that shows consensus. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yuchitown: We dont have censorship at wikipedia. We do follow sourcing policies. Long lists of so called references that dont anchor text are external links, and we dont offer WP:LINKFARM. Suggest some content here on the talk page if you want to use the references. This article has problems with POV pushing, maybe due to current events. All the WP:OVERCITE is evidence of WP:TE. Discuss here prior to re-adding. If you want to use excessive citations to show something is due, you can use WP:CITEBUNDLE. All this junk doesnt belong in the WP:LEDE, lede is to summarize. This article gets to follow wikipedia policy just like the rest of them, no matter how strongly you feel about this matter. As far as I can see the word squaw has been and is used by dozens of hundreds of locations, so stating it IS as slur in WP:WIKIVOICE as and is primary use is a slur requires a lot of high quality RS. Otherwise it violates WP:SENSE, which would seem to indicate this word was uncontroversial for a long time and maybe recently became controversial (otherwise why would ski resorts, housing developments, towns, etc be named after it). If it is more recently in been determined (an opinion) to be a slur (by some), it must be so attributed, and the RS justify it, and if we can demonstrate a consensus (which I haven't seen), only then can we use wikivoice. Feel free to open an RfC or WP:DR if you think I am out of line, but the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate all this content is due when it is disputed. Dont keep re-adding disputed content without discussion this talk page, that is WP:TE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not the way it works. It's not tendentious to say that you are the one who needs consensus when three editors disagree with you and you have no support. It should stay the way it was until there's some agreement to change it, and I note that you also removed some sources.

I'm not saying that nothing you have said has merit, but that's not the way to go about it. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, you write above "Long lists of so called references that dont anchor text are external links," - there was no long list of references, there were 9 of which 4 anchored text. And to be a link farm they have to be, well, links. Otherwise they can be added to further reading, as I've done with those that actually don't anchor text. Please be more careful in the future. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To Jtbobwaysf, as the sources that you are trying to remove spell out, squaw is and has been a slur for an immensely long time. I made one single edit, so no need to tell me "dont keep re-adding content that is disputed and under discussion on talk page." Please stop pushing your POV here. Yuchitown (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), you are now very clearly attempting a POV push against consensus, complete with misrepresenting policy. I see you've also gone to other articles, such as Squaw Valley, and attempted similar blankings to push this POV:diff. And you never addressed your repeated misrepresentation of the sources you blanked. Either you didn't even open the sources, or you assumed others wouldn't. You are also either unfamiliar with this topic or, again, assuming others here are unfamiliar and you can misrepresent sources that we have actually read. I seriously suggest you stop this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

List of links

This is not needed, put here per WP:PRESERVE. Maybe someone wants to actually use them to anchor text in the future. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Carrier, Paul. June 27, 2000. 'Squaw' renaming may have exception. Portland Press Herald.
• Cutler, Charles L. 1994. O Brave New Words! Native American Loanwords in Current English. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-2655-8
• Green, Rayna. 1975. "The Pocahontas Perplex: The Image of Indian Women in American Culture." Massachusetts Review 16:698–714.
• Hagengruber, James. 2006. "Tribe wants 'squaw' off map". SpokesmanReview.Com (Idaho), Oct. 6, 2006. Retrieved Feb. 28, 2007.
• Laurent, Chief Joseph. 1884. New Familiar Abenakis and English Dialogues. Quebec, Leger Brousseau. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2007.
• Masta, Henry Lorne. 1932. Abenaki Indian Legends, Grammar and Place Names. Odanak, P.Q., Canada.
• Mihesuah, Devon Abbott. 2003. Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism. University of Nebraska Press.
• Simpson, J.A. and E.S.C. Weiner. 1989. Oxford English Dictionary. 20 volumes. New York: Oxford University Press.

The first 4 do anchor text and removing them left readers no way to check the sources where they were used. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Totality of being female"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OED Definition

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

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

That's misleading. Squaw Valley's report[3] says

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short what the OED actually says is:

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

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

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

There's no reason to accuse the author of the report to be lying. Lexico is powered by the OUP and says what I wrote above. Once again OUP says [4]

1offensive A North American Indian woman or wife.

1.1 a North American A woman or wife.

Usage

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

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

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

Introduction of weasel words and unsourced opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redoing the placenames and renaming section to be a table?

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

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

Lede vs body: contradiction

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

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

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

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

Tide of vandalism from IPs and new accounts

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

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