Talk:Plains Indian Sign Language/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

I propose a title change.100110100 22:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To what? - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear from the article, was this language used by deaf people or as a common language among traders and the like? Brianski 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

According to a 19th century book on the subject (unfortunately, I don't have the title handy), it was used by the deaf and by travelers. Also, it was quite useful for hunting. Afalbrig (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Used by everyone to overcome language barriers while traveling and trading on the Plains. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsid

Who?!

Iron Eyes Cody, of all people, is cited in the bibliography?! —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem that you are pointing out, I assume, is that there is question as to whether he was really Indian, i.e. he may have been an imposter. However, for purposes of an article on PISL, I don't see why that matters. Jeffrey Davis is not Indian either (nor does he pretend to be), but his book Hand Talk, which is also in the bibliography, is one of the most cited current sources on native American signing. The key question for this article is whether the book Cody wrote is a useful resource to refer readers to. Granted, if Cody was indeed an imposter, that raises questions about the reliability of information in his book, but the book needs to be judged on its own merits, independent of Cody's other actions. (I can't do that, since I'm not familiar with the book.) AlbertBickford (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC), revised AlbertBickford (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved / no clear consensus, as the current title appears to be the common name, and oppose comments were not countered. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Plains Indian Sign Language → Plains Sign Language – Use of 'indian' is pejorative in Canada where the language is found; "Plains Indian Sign Language" and "Plains Sign Talk" can be kept as alternative names as they are frequently employed, but Plains Sign Language is neutral and does not contain a slur where a speaker base is found. 137.82.118.246 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. "Plains Indian Sign Language" is the more WP:COMMONNAME in Canada and the U.S.: [1] vs. [2]. I don't see evidence that the use is considered pejorative.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there is evidence provided to the contrary, I agree with Cúchullain. We should use the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reasoning for the Move Review

Cúchullain: You cited "I don't see evidence that the use is considered pejorative." Here is evidence: [3] [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] amongst many other sources.

Further, as said before, "Indian" is a pejorative term in Canada, and attaching it to a language found in Canada because a majority of research is being conducted in the US is not reason enough to not make it acceptable to both parties. Plains Sign Language has no competitor, is not confusing and can be widely understood to mean the same thing.

It is widely accepted in Canada, especially amongst Indigenous communities and those who work with them that "Indian" is offensive (sometimes highly) and should not be employed outside a strict legal setting.

Andy W., I apologise for not chiming into the discussion when it was open. I believe that there is a mountain of evidence showing the derogatory nature of the term "Indian" in Canada, and I believe it was not evenly represented in the move request. Above can be found evidence of the pejorative nature of the term in the country. Users searching "Plains Indian Sign Language" would still be able to find the page through redirection and a note in the introduction. Jenks24, above you can also find evidence.
Some further observations that may be helpful:
  • We should keep in mind in connection with this discussion is that (I assume) none of us are users of the language, and certainly Wikipedia as a whole is not, and so we should be very cautious about taking it on ourselves to rename the language. If the name "Plains Sign Language" is documented in reputable sources, then that would be a possible name to use for the article, but Wikipedia should not be devising language names on its own, no matter how well-meaning our intentions.
  • Is there evidence that the full name "Plains Indian Sign Language" is considered pejorative in Canada? That is potentially a distinct question from whether "Indian" by itself is pejorative, although obviously related.
  • I do know that "Plains Indian Sign Language" is widely used as a name for the language in the U.S., and in most recent research, and it is the name used in ISO 639-3. So, we do need to include it prominently in the lead, even if it is not the title of the article.
  • Since "Plains Sign Talk" is attested and accepted in Canada as well as the U.S., why not use it as the title of the article?
AlbertBickford (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I just found the name "Plains Sign Language" in Ethnologue. But, Ethnologue lists names if even one obscure source uses them, so that's probably not sufficient basis, on its own, to justify using that name for the article. AlbertBickford (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Video sample of the language

It seems very strange that the only example of the language we have in the article is from a person who is not Native American and not a native signer. There were dozens of films made during the conference that General Scott organized; certainly one showing an indigenous person must be available. Can anyone find one? AlbertBickford (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I see that General Scott is only at the very beginning, and most of the video shows indigenous signers. I was thrown off by the first frame, which mentions only him. We probably can't do anything about that first frame, but I will change the caption to make it clear that there are many indigenous signers shown. AlbertBickford (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I discovered the "thumbtime" parameter for the video, which allowed selection of a frame that showed an indigenous signer. AlbertBickford (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2016

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move after extended discussion. bd2412 T 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Plains Indian Sign Language → Plains Sign Talk – Pejorative nature of the term "Indian" in Canada; understood name in both Canada and US. Searching the names "PISL" "Plains Indian Sign Language" "Plains Sign Language" "First Nation Sign Language" will garner results either through redirection or the introductory note Danachos (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings either way on the proposed move, but simply add a reminder that whatever we decide for the title, the lead should include the other names and where each is used. So, a page move may require some rewording of the rest of the article. AlbertBickford (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The last request saw no additional proof submitted by myself (because, frankly, I had forgotten about it) or anyone else. Since its rejection, there has been added proof to the pejorative nature of the term "Indian" as well as the use of the term "Plains Sign Talk" as an acceptable alternative with the stipulation that the start of the article indicating additional or former names --Danachos (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, so let's ping the people who participated in the discussion before: @Andy M. Wang:, @Cuchullain:, @Jenks24:. AlbertBickford (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I'd need to see specific evidence that the name "Plains Indian Sign Language" is problematic to support moving it, as it's a far more WP:COMMON name than the proposed (cf [9] vs. [10] on Google Books. In fact, "Plains Indian Sign Talk" is more common still.[11]--Cúchullain t/c 18:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Common does not negate the pejorative and harmful nature of words. When there are two accepted terms (actually, more: see First Nation Sign Language in Ontario) and one causes significant harm to not only a major population but the major population who speaks or historically spoke this language, it should be seriously considered to change the name. And, once again, this is not leading the charge on the name change here, Plains Sign Talk and First Nation Sign Language are both commonly accepted terms with even Plains Sign Language being used; not only are these names recognisable to indicate this language, the reason the discriminatory name (PISL) is used so heavily is because more research is undertaken in the States. For evidence cited: [12] [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] amongst many other sources. In fact, there is a case brought up in Ontario calling on the ban of Cleveland's major MLB team name as it violates the Ontario and Canadian Human Rights Codes [18] (though the case was sustained, it points to the debilitating nature of such words and rhetoric). --Danachos (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sensitive to the fact that many in Canada consider the term "Indian" to be outdated or derogatory, but the fact remains that "Plains Indian Sign Language" (or "Plains Indian Sign Talk") is the most common term for this subject. Barring evidence that people object to this construction, I'm wary of giving the article a much less common and potentially less recognizable name. It's true that most of the research has been done in the U.S., but it's also true that the peoples of the plains have long been known as Plains Indians without offense.--Cúchullain t/c 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To summarize so far:

  • Relevant policy for this discussion is WP:TITLE and in particular the sections WP:COMMONNAME (NB: not WP:COMMON) and WP:NPOVTITLE.
  • It seems pretty clear that the term "Indian" is non-neutral in Canada; the question that hasn't been answered is whether the full name "Plains Indian Sign Language" is considered pejorative as a result. As Cuchullain has pointed out, just because one component of a name has a particular characteristic, doesn't mean the whole name has that characteristic.
  • It is clear that the current name is the most common name in reliable sources, but other names are used fairly commonly also, such as the "Plains Sign Talk" in this specific proposal, which would get around any problems of non-neutrality, if it can be established that the current full title is pejorative.
  • Redirects should be able to handle any of the problems that have been noted about people finding the article.

So, the key question seems to be the need for evidence that the current title, as a whole, is pejorative. For example, is there any evidence that that name is avoided in Canadian publications, that other names are preferred? AlbertBickford (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose – A JSTOR search of scholarly literature gives a 2+/1 advantage of “Plains Indian Sign Language” to “Plains Sign Talk” (53/22). Google NGRAM [19] displays overwhelming evidence for “Plains Indian Sign Language”. As for the pejorative nature of “Plains Indian Sign Language”, I see no overwhelming evidence that it is a pejorative to a majority. None of the sources cited by @Danachos: above explicitly say “Plains Indian Sign Language” is pejorative. They imply “some people” find the term “Indian” offensive” All the sources cited but one are clearly biased websites with agendas, but none explicitly say “Plains Indian Sign Language” is pejorative. Even the Canadian Government website cited uses “Indian” in a positive way although commenting that “some people” find the term “Indian” outdated and offensive. “Some people” does not convey “pejorative for the majority”. Although I would like to see explicit evidence in scholarly literature that “Plains Indian Sign Language” is pejorative, I doubt that it exists. “Plains Indian Sign Language” is clearly and overwhelmingly the Common Name and should be the title of this article per WP:AT. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The map needs a legend

It’s unclear what the various colors represent, there is also no attribution to the map. Arctostaphylospallida (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plains_Indian_Sign_Language/Archive_1&oldid=1169535286"