# Talk:Redskin

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

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 However, unlike "Indian" the term "Negro" is more outdated.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

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

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

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

Washington Redskins name controversy has a section on the origin and meaning of the name, but the details are in Redskin (slang)
Washington Redskins name controversy#Other teams that use the name Redskins is a summary of Native American mascot controversy#Redskins

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

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

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

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

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

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

The translations were, I believe, made by half-bloods: “The Speeches made at the Ilinois & at other places are generally taken by French Interpreters, who are men of very little learning, this will account for the badness of the French & the errors or Orthography". Johnson, William 1921–1965 The Papers of Sir William Johnson. 14 vols. Albany, NY: The University of the State of New York [2]  Bromley86 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The translation of "peaux rouges" as "redskins" is a direct quote from the source, so it should remain? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
That was my initial thought too, but our wording is currently "which translates as", rather than "which was translated as", so I can see Elinruby's point.  I imagine we should say "which was translated as" if we want to use redskin.  Both work for me.  Bromley86 (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily this would be a good place for an explanatory footnote, but WP does not seem to use them much.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, perhaps the correction of the translation inadvertently undercuts Goddard's argument that these were the first uses of the combined term redskin rather that the expression "red skin".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Cool, correcting to translation then.  Bromley86 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Making it "was translated" works for me as far as "tout" vs "tous"; it's a small point but I don't like to validate even small errors. Meanwhile, I do feel that peaux rouges does not exactly correspond to redskin, but I am content to let that hang fire unless or until I am able to propose a solution, since it's a fairly central point and I haven't done enough research to question what is definitely a reliable source under wikipedia rules. I may come back to it. But this is also me, noting the possible issue with Goddard's analysis and when I comes to French my credentials are probably better than his ;) but credentials of editors of course are not a factor in wikipedia discussion of issues. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
"Peau" is feminine. The determiner could never be "tous."
2600:8800:1E80:4F50:E009:6CC7:1E01:F2B9 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Placed a summary of the Darren Reid content in the origins section since that is what he addresses, removed excess detail from the Evolved meaning section.
Removed a second "However" that seemed unnecessary and awkward.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Having added some uncontroversial content on usage in newspapers to the "Later use" section, I see no reason not to combine "Evolving meaning" and "Later use" into a single section, perhaps entitled "Pejoration" again. Some of the items may not currently be in chronological order.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

Upon reviewing the sources on high schools, there is little to support any content directly relevant to the topic of this article, the meaning and usage of the term redskin. Only two aspects of the Washington Redskins controversy, opinion polls and the trademark decision, address this topic. University and high schools decisions will be removed unless they are similar.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
While I was otherwise occupied by the flu in March, a number of significant changes were made by User:Dbachmann, some of which seem to go beyond the cited sources into over-generalization and speculation. Most troubling is the removal of an entire section reflecting the Native American point of view on the topic, reducing it to a single sentence: 

"Some Native American activists in the 21st century, in contradiction of the etymological evidence discussed above, assert that "redskin" refers directly to the bloody, red scalp or other body part collected for bounty."
This is inaccurate, since the Native American leaders have been making their case for decades, and the wording comparing the evidence from different sources is WP:synth.
I am open to discussion before making corrections.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

While I am now the major contributor, I did not originate the article or select its name. A case might be made for changing the name to simply "Redskin" which would coincide with the articles about  other generally recognized racial slurs, such as nigger, kike, and spic; none of which include ((racial slur)) in their title. All racial slurs are also slang, since they are not standard terms, but used by individuals to signal the inclusion or exclusion of others. Perhaps the original article was titled to differentiate it from merely descriptive uses, such as redskin peanuts or potatoes. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
It's both slang and a slur. The primary usage, originally, was (and is) slang, and is not intended as a slur, as far as I can tell from reading the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The same is said about nigger, which began as a slang reference to black skin but quickly became a slur. The real question is whether to make this the default target of a search for "redskin" rather than the current disambiguation page. The assumption that the meaning of the term is unambiguously a slur might be a violation of NPOV given the number of sports fans who disagree. Since I live in DC, I see or hear and read the term constantly, and am in the minority who react to it as a slur. Googling "redskin" results in mainly references to the sports team, while a search in my university library results in many of the references used in the controversy articles. Do academics or common usage rule on WP in questions of NPOV?  --WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
We could involve WP:NDN in the discussion, if we want more eyes. The projects on inherent bias and such are basically dead. I have redirected the Euro term Red Indian to this page as, while I know there are people who used to use it in a neutral way, it really is a slur now, the way "Redskin" is. (The page had redirected simply to one of the Native pages.) Right now Nigger is just at the word, no qualifier in the page name. I think that the issue here is less about slur vs slang, but that the sports team page gets more hits, so will always be seen as the dominant page unless and until they change the team name. We could propose a page move for this, however, to Redskin (ethnic slur). As long as we have plenty of sources citing it as a slur, that might work. I can make it a redirect now, and see how that goes. If there's support for a page move we can just move over the redirect. With controversy around it, if you want to move the page it should probably be suggested via the formal process, not just informally here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I made the redirect. Before proposing the page move, I would see if you can rewrite the lede to meet the criteria for that page name, with ample sourcing in the lede itself that documents its use as a slur. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
If there were a page move, I would vote to simple rename this article to Redskin, and move the current content of that page to Redskin (disambiguation). The article would begin with a standard disclaimer: This article is about the term redskin; for other uses see Redskin (disambiguation). The current opening sentence clearly established the current meaning as derogatory with reference to dictionary definitions. However, I do not think it is a slur in the same sense as the other racial terms cited, which have no alternative use. An article entitle Redskin (ethnic slur) would be WP:SYNTH since it states a conclusion while the article gives a more complex and balanced view.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made the page move request.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I accessed this article to find out whether Native Americans indeed have red or reddish skin. Unfortunately this article does not trouble itself to answer that mundane question and instead indulges in political waffling. The few Native Americans that I have met (Pacific coastal Canada and Pacific coastal USA) did not have a red skin colour, but perhaps there are regional differences?  I would be grateful if someone could make a simple, referenced statement near the beginning of the article on Native American skin colour. 86.158.216.245 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You read the wrong article, this one is about the word redskin as used in English, which has become a political issue. Information on the objective skin color of humans would be found in Human skin color. The answer is everyone is a shade of brown, some more reddish than others. "Native American" is a collective term for over 500 ethnic groups spanning a continent so there is no one answer, any more than for any other geographical area.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. The Human skin color page is useful in many ways, but unfortunately you are wrong: that article does not mention native American skin colour(s) either. So my question remains: are there any red or reddish-skinned Native Americans? A Google search "Do Native Americans have red skin?" provides political waffle but no answer. I have never seen a red-skinned Native American (Washington State, British Columbia, Arizona, various South American native musicians performing in the streets of Europe), and I am beginning to conclude that no such red skin exists. If so, I maintain this should be pointed out at the beginning of the article using the existing sources saying "For the sake of clarity, none of these sources makes the claim that any Native American tribes have a red or reddish skin colour." [optional addition: "- they vary from light-skinned to brown]". 86.140.70.245 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I did not say the information you sought was in the skin color article, but that it should be. If you find any answers on Google, perhaps you can improve that article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again for replying quickly, but I disagree with your proposal of "passing the buck" to a different article. Redskin is the obvious place to look up red skin. As I explained, Google came up only with political waffle on American sport (which no doubt is interesting to some Americans, but not to the rest of the world). Google did not provide either an endorsement or a disclaimer of "red skin" in Native Americans. I have suggested a simple disclaimer ("For the sake of clarity, none of these sources makes the claim that any Native American tribes have a naturally red or reddish skin colour.") and would be grateful if you, as a registered user, could implement it. Thank you. 86.140.70.245 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@PeterM34:, you are repeatedly removing sourced content. I have left a notice on your page explaining the issues with this. The content you were removing was already well-sourced in the body of the article, and is now also sourced in the lede. Stop this POV push. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I removed no links. My link was removed. 
As a Native American I am perturbed someone else would prose mixed opinion as fact. Plus the same information is shared below on the same page.  
Other clean-up items of grammar and incorrect verb tense were continuously removed out of pettiness. 
Furthermore, if they're going to state many Native Americans were against it for decades, then they must also accept polls showed a high percentage was not. 
Agreed?   PeterM34 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@PeterM34:

I am not Native American, but I believe that the NCAI represents the majority opinion, which are not mixed on this. I am a social scientist, so I know the difference between a scientific study and an opinion poll. The body of the article details the difference in this case, so there is no need to mention anything in the lead except the NCAI opposition to the name since 1968.
Mixing POV and grammar correction in the same edit got both reverted. I have gone back to review my wording and made changes.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
re:Edit warring, your first edit was so obviously POV that I simply reverted it, but with a good edit summary to explain. You reverted me, with more POV about removing an opinion, indicating that you had ignored my explanation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that the controversy has entered a different stage (but certainly not gone away), some revisions to this article are in order. Perhaps there was always too much about the DC team, but the subsections on the opinion polls and trademark dispute could be reduced by moving content from here to the linked articles on those topics.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I will likely work on these sections now, reducing the content to only what is relevant to the article topic, the meaning of the term "redskin". This is in accordance with WP:Summary style.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Done, summarizing the polling subsection, the trademark subsection seems ok.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This page currently has discussions that are both older and newer than the content in Archive 2. Although the archive template says Do Not Modify the talk page guidelines seem to allow for correction of errors such as this.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bmf 051:
The last paragraph in the opening section is now overlinked, having two links to the same target article. The first is an intentional link to a redirect page, something that I have always assumed should also be avoided. The information being summarized is that what once had been the most prominent usage of the term "redskin" has been changed, the meaning of the term (the topic of the article) being the reason for that change. The topic is about words, not sports teams, so the old name is a distinct entity and should no longer link to the team article in this context. Rewording is needed, but the information requires more than one sentence to convey, so I do not think duplication of links assists the understanding of a reader entirely unfamiliar with the topic but may in fact be confusing.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: The article may be about words, but the paragraph is about sports teams, which is why the quotation marks are unnecessary. I agree that it is overlinked: I was trying to compromise between your position and mine (by invoking WP:IAR). The first mention (of either Washington Redskins or Washington Football Team) really needs to be linked, as it significantly aids the reader's understanding of that paragraph. Rewriting it so that "Washington Football Team" occurs in the paragraph before "Washington Redskins" might be the best way to achieve this.
Linking to a redirect should not be a problem. That's what redirects are for. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the paragraph to place one link to the current team article, and also eliminated the details that do not need to be in the opening section when summarizing article content per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am trying Transclusion as an alternative to maintaining similar content is several articles.
I maintain the list of secondary school mascots, the redskins section is transcluded into this and another article.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I need something more than an edit summary to explain why a feature that was programmed into WP should never be used.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Should never be used? That isn't true. Transclusion is widely used, primarily for templates and maintenance pages in the Wikipedia name space; these constitute most of the examples given in Wikipedia:Transclusion. There are a few pages in article space that use transclusion too.
The fact that it is possible to do doesn't mean it is appropriate to do. I reverted your transclusion because I disagree with you that this article needs a list of specific secondary schools. This article isn't a list article, and there is no need to include (or transclude) a list into it. The article is already long enough, and anyone who wants to see the specific schools (I don't when I view this page) can always follow the link given. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Your edit summary was "It's best not to transclude anything, just link to it..." which is not exactly what you are saying above. Transclusion is ok, but you disagree with the content, not the method. I disagree, as the editor who has been following the topic since 2012. Including a list of 40 here does not make his a "list article". Over the years I have used several lists of similar size in other articles on this topic, which lends itself to such presentation. When the lists grew too large, I spun them off into their own articles such as List of Washington Redskins name change advocates which reached more than 40 in Washington Redskins name controversy before the split. Working the other way, it seemed to me that the number of high schools being down to 40 (and shrinking rapidly) is significant, and transclusion makes it easy to present this information without the need for a reader to follow a link.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll address your points in order:
I primarily disagree with the content, but I also disagree with the method. Transclusion in main article space consists mostly of shared templates rather than translcuded article content. Transclusion creates a load on the server preprocessor, which is why there are limits imposed on transclusions. If a transclusion isn't necessary, then avoid it.
The fact that you have been following the topic for 9 years suggests that you are invested in it. Step back and look at the article from the perspective of an uninvolved reader. I am approaching the topic as a reader who wants to learn about it. It struck me as a non-sequitur to be reading informative prose about the subject and then be confronted with a list of specific secondary schools whose names mean nothing to me, without any context about the reasons for the size of the list. So I reverted it back to the version that provided an informative treatment about the subject, with a link to the list of specific schools for anyone who really cares about their identities.
"I have used several lists of similar size in other articles" is basically a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and isn't a reason for including the list here. The counter-argument is that if the lists in those other articles are as inappropriate as I perceived the list in this article, then those lists should be removed as well.
"...the number of high schools being down to 40 (and shrinking rapidly) is significant, and transclusion makes it easy to present this information without the need for a reader to follow a link." Not really, no. Yes, the number of high schools shrinking down to 40 is significant and needs to be explained in prose, giving examples like my reversion does. The significance of this number is neither explained nor clarified merely by transcluding a list. That is not an encyclopedic treatment of the topic, it's just a display of data. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
First, I appreciate your taking the time to respond fully. Regarding your points:
Frankly the "Help" page for transclusions was not helpful, and did not appear to argue that its use in main space was to be avoided. I did not see the template limits article before; perhaps it is deemed too technical for primary documentation. I was hoping to find something helpful in keeping content up to date across related articles. This is what I do by hand much of the time, the Native American mascot controversy being continually evolving topic.
I don't know whether you mean invested in the topic or moving toward ownership. My attachment to the topic is the same as that of the social scientists that I have been reading to create content. The fact that my authorship of articles is high actually worries me, I submitted the two main articles for GA review primarily to get others to collaborate.
Adding the prose needed to convey the reasons for and the significance of the decline in mascots is difficult; each school makes its decision to change or keep its team name independently, and the details are not often mentioned in reliable sources. As a social scientist myself, I understand what is going on, but cannot say so without OR. However this article is about the word, not its usage in sports, so maybe the best thing to do is place the sports content in linked articles.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

About your second point, I didn't mean to imply you were moving toward ownership, I meant simply that you appeared to be looking at the article through a different lens than a reader who is new to the topic. I try to read articles from a new-reader perspective, and replace anything that looks like it doesn't belong with a relevant link.
Your third point expresses my objection far more succinctly than I managed: It's about the word, not its usage in sports. That's why the list appeared to me like it didn't belong. It seemed like unnecessary detail tangential to the main topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Having been complete and stable for a number of years, I think it is time for this.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC I made a review at Talk:Redskin/GA1 and since you're primary contributor/nominator wanted to make sure you saw it (I guess bot would notify you as well). I'll leave it on hold for a week pending no improvements, then either mark as succeed/failed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Redskin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


### Strong potential, several major issues
While reviewing the article, I saw several instances where the sources did not match the claims made inside the Wiki text. I boldly removed one case, where the N word was purportedly referenced in the Merriam Webster dictionary in comparing redskin. It wasn't, so I removed it entirely in this edit, but there are other cases I found, where there's a misunderstanding of the sourced text, and missing contextualization. In Redskin#Origins of redskin in English it correctly notes that Goddard considered the 1699 claim to be spurious, only for the next paragraph to claim, that he 'admits it cannot be verified' which is a misinterpretation of the source. Rather, he does provide claims that redskin usage was first used in 1812. Using same source it should be noted earlier that activist Suzan Shown Harjo critiqued Goddard, and using a separate source, should be noted that Sociologist James V. Fenelon considered Goddard's work to be 'poor scholarship' (needs to be clearer which article too). We don't need to determine who's right, but we do need to have a WP:DUE prose that includes all the arguments. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

While I have added ~50% of the text, I do not remember adding the N-word comparison being attributed to the OED. However, the confusion regrading Goddard's WaPo interview comment (Gugliotta) is not as stated above. Rather than referring to the 1699 letter from the previous section, Goddard is casting doubt on the French translations he relied upon in his own paper, contradicting himself. I have attempted to make this clarification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
In some cases, a subject expert's blog/oped can be used like with Gyasi Ross, but it's unclear why this Medium article was used, or who the author is.
The content regarding Oklahoma has three elements, the popular "humma means red so Oklahoma means red people"; the Choctaw dictionary entry that provide an alternative meaning for humma, and the Medium post tying the two together, without which there would be two definitions with an implied synthesis that one is wrong. Instead, it seemed better to have a citation for the synthesis.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Great care is needed to also not treat all indigenous people as a monolith as evident with terms like "native language" when the example used was Meskwaki language (an example of one of many Indigenous or Native American languages). Similarly, it should be explicitly clear that "si quelques peaux Rouges" was an alleged French transliteration (or as Goddard claims, a total fabrication). Because, it's only later in the bottom of the section that its tangentially noted by Historian Darren Reid of Coventry University states it is difficult for historians to document anything with certainty since Native Americans, as a non-literate society, did not produce the written sources upon which historians rely.
Again the above seems to be based upon confusion regrading the 1699 letter debunked by Goddard and his reliance on the letters in French purported to be translation from the Miami-Illinois language.
The names of indigenous peoples and languages have been used whenever they have been cited in sources. There is only one use of "native language" in the current text, and that seems unavoidable since it refers to the entire southeastern US.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I know that was a long review, but with proper verification/removal of low quality sourcing, this article has potential to reach GA status. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, although I proposed this review three months ago, and no longer have the same degree of interest.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I have addressed the issues stated above as best I can, and am awaiting further review.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I have re-written the origin in English section, with clearer attribution to Ive Goddard, and removed superfluous subsection heading.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
WriterArtistDC I’m really loving the progress and updates! I had stressful week so didn’t get a proper chance to re-review, but I hope to do that by this weekend and happy to continue working with you to the finish line. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Shushugah, I must have stopped watching this article while I moved on to other topics, so some errors crept in. I should have given it a more careful read before making the nomination.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC I've carefully re-read it and confirmed this is now a Good Article! Thank you for diligently sticking to improving it! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A second meaning refers to a light-skinned person, usually of mixed European and African origin (sometimes offensive). JMGN (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)