Talk:Squaw

message: Sorry about my last post. These.[https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/calling-squaw-a-racist-term-interior-secretary-haaland-calls-for-it-to-be-removed-from-geographic-place-names}. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few more recent sources 

message: The sections you inserted, while having some usable content, are largely redundant with the current content. Instead of dropping in redundant sections, which make the article less readable, please work in collaboration with other editors to integrate new content and sourcing into the existing text. It's fine if this results is some restructuring, but we shouldn't have repeated sections that say basically the same things. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant sections added 

message: While I agree with your point here, we've actually needed to make this clear. Some background: We unfortunately had to get that basic because of a history of ignorant and aggressive edit-warring on this article. Hopefully, that is over now. But... if that level of disruption resumes, we may need to put something to that effect back in. I sincerely hope not, as we now have abundant sourcing that should make that unnecessary. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I wasn't aware of the history here (and I'm a lifelong New Englander, so none of the information in question is exactly a revelation to me personally). If there's anything you think needs to be readded go for it, I certainly don't want to degrade the long-term quality of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really, really basic explanations that there really aren't exceptions to this 

message: I feel like this distinction is helpful.
If a native speaker used it, 
devoid of historical baggage, 
is this like calling a person "woman" directly 
("what are you doing, woman!?"*)  
or is this like calling a person something so dehumanizing as to be confusing? 
(Like using the prefix "un" as a noun) 2600:1700:F380:3240:C144:371F:7A02:1001 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free or bound morpheme? 

message: Or "That said, it should be noted". See MOS:NOTED and MOS:EDITORIAL. This include "nonetheless" and "That said". Doug Weller talk 15:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  We shouldn't be using phrases such as "Nonetheless, it should be noted" 

message: This article is ridiculous. The term originates with Algonquin languages of the now US northeast that the English dealt with on an everyday basis in the 18th century. The English were taught by the Algonquin that the word means "woman". So it became the universal English term for a Native American woman, based upon what they were taught by indigenous American peoples. It's origins are not a slur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riceman1974 (talk • contribs) 
Agreed. Crescent77 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite some sources that indicate Native Americans do not find it offensive in counter to the several included sources confirming they do, then. Walkersam (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is ridiculous

message: The list of new place names was published by the USGS on September 8, 2022. USGS edits list Pedanticloser (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 643 places renamed! Added to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New place names published 

message: What is the deal with the huge WP:OVERCITE in the lede? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look over the talk and history, you'll see how we've had a few persistent users, usually IPs, who, despite all evidence, insist this is not a slur. So, more and more sources were added. Due to the perennial complaints, I'd WP:IAR here and just leave it as-is. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcite 

message: I was comparing the latest version of this page to one from back in 2017 and it struck me that the section in the older version re. the etymology of the word was very interesting with all the Native American terminology and much more detailed. Is there any scope for incorporating the older etymology section into the latest article?5.81.14.245 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In various rounds of cleanup we've had to examine whether sources were reliable. It would depend on the sourcing. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology  

message: Etymological fallacy seems to be leaking in here. This term is considered a slur because of usage, not because its etymology is flawed in some way. It is in fact quite common for ethnic slurs to be based on endonyms, such as "Polack". Having a valid etymology does not at all mean it's not a slur. Pharos (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: please page up to, and read, the #Etymological fallacy section, just above where you started a new section. These theories, while I'm sure they are interesting to those new to the topic, have already been discussed repeatedly on talk, and are outweighed by the dozens of more recent sources that firmly define it as a slur. The up-to-date sources now include official, US government declarations. However we got here, consensus in Indian Country, and now in the world at large, is that is is a slur. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Etymological fallacy]] 

message: From the American Indian Culture and Research Journal 1990, 14(4)
 According to Ojibway elder Saxon Gouge, as reported in The Journal: News From Indian Country and reprinted in the Minneapolis American Indian community newspaper The Circle (March 1989), ”The word Squaw is a most derogatory word (being) actually a European corruption of an Iroquoian word meaning female sexual parts.
But according to Ives Goddard's full text (Ref No 17 main page)
A competing claim has been made in recent years, despite the clear evidence that squaw comes from an Algonquian word for "woman, and in fact without discussing this evidence.  This is the claim (often somewhat garbled) that squaw actually comes from the Mohawk word ojiskwa', which we can politely translate `vagina'.  Mohawk was spoken some 200 miles from Plymouth in the Mohawk Valley by the principal enemies of the Massachusett Indians.  It is, of course, a language of the Iroquoian family, which is completely distinct from the Algonquian family.  Ms. [Muriel] Charwood-Litzau refers to (but misquotes) the earliest published reference to this idea that I know of, an anthology called Literature of the American Indian edited by Thomas E. Sanders and Walter W. Peek (Berkeley: Glencoe Press, 1973).  There the origin is given as "probably a French corruption of the Iroquois word otsiskwa meaning `female sexual parts' (p. 184).  The spelling used is the traditional system used by French Canadian missionaries, but the source of the information is not given.  This claim has more recently become widely known because of the following statement made on the Oprah Winfrey television show in 1992 by Suzan Harjo: "The word squaw, for example, is an Algonquian [sic] Indian word meaning 'vagina,' and that'll give you an idea what the French and British fur-trappers were calling all Indian women, and I hope no one ever uses that term again.  (From the program "Racism in 1992: Native Americans, as transcribed from a videotape by Jim Rementer at the request of a Delaware tribal member who knew from his knowledge of his own language that it was incorrect.)
It is as certain as any historical fact can be that the word squaw that the English settlers in Massachusetts used for "Indian woman in the early 1600s was adopted by them from the word squa that their Massachusett-speaking neighbors used in their own language to mean "female, younger woman, and not from Mohawk ojiskwa' "vagina''
Elsewhere the Oxford University Press concludes:
 
"...misspent political zeal turned squaw into an ethnic slur ”
https://blog.oup.com/2009/07/ethnic-slurs/ 
The OUP article describes the whole idea that Squaw is a  slur as a political 'fib'. 92.12.213.166 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: please page up to, and read, the #Etymological fallacy section, just above where you started a new section. These theories, while I'm sure they are interesting to those new to the topic, have already been discussed repeatedly on talk, and are outweighed by the dozens of more recent sources that firmly define it as a slur. The up-to-date sources now include official, US government declarations. However we got here, consensus in Indian Country, and now in the world at large, is that is is a slur. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative View 

message: Change:
The English word squaw is an ethnic and sexual slur,[1][2][3][4] historically used for Indigenous North American women.[1][5] Contemporary use of the term, especially by non-Natives, is considered derogatory, misogynist, and racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
While squaw (or a close variant) is found in several Eastern and Central Algonquian languages, primarily spoken in the northeastern United States and in eastern and central Canada,[8][9] these languages only make up a small minority of the Indigenous languages of North America. The word "squaw" is not used among Native American, First Nations, Inuit, or Métis peoples.[2][3][4][5] Even in Algonquian, the words used are not the English-language slur. [8]
To :
The word Squaw is an Algonquian term meaning the "complete woman".  It is a term of high respect leading to over 650 known places having the term Squaw in their title.  Many non-native English speaking people associate the term as derogatory while using only opinion as fact. Editor1326 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to want to change content based on nine independent sources to something with no sources at all. That's not going to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Also please note the article is about the English language term, not the Algonquian term. Crescent77 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note Squaw is not an English language term.  It is an Algonquian term. Editor1326 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We have three English language dictionaries as references, showing that it is indeed an english language term. Crescent77 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Also please note.  All sources in the original original content are only opinions.  Not actual sources. Editor1326 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reference specific sources when making specific claims. Crescent77 (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023 (2) 

message: Add new section under "Efforts to rename placenames and terms":
"Evergreen, a name that was suggested and voted on by community residents will be the new name of Squaw Cap, New Brunswick. These changes will take effect in January 2024."https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2023.11.0559.html
Change: "As of December 2022, Squaw Peak Inn, Squaw Lake (Minnesota), Squaw Grove Township (DeKalb County, Illinois), Squaw Canyon Oil Field, Squaw Cap (New Brunswick), Squaw Creek Southern Railroad, Squaw Gap (North Dakota), and Squaw Township (Iowa) remained unchanged."
To: "As of Novemeber 2023, Squaw Peak Inn, Squaw Lake (Minnesota), Squaw Grove Township (DeKalb County, Illinois), Squaw Canyon Oil Field, Squaw Creek Southern Railroad, Squaw Gap (North Dakota), and Squaw Township (Iowa) remained unchanged." Joesmithboy123 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: The name change has not happened yet. Meters (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023