Talk:Tsuutʼina language

Name is said to be offensive

According to the main ethno group article, the term used in this title is considered offensive by today's Tsuu T'ina. Should it not be changed to reflect that? Or does linguistics exist in a bubble insulated from the values and feelings of the subjects of study/ If no answer in a few days (really there is none that will do) this should be RM'd.Skookum1 (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

On your user page, you say, "Wikipedia should seek to reflect reality, not influence it or control it" and also "politically-correct language is inherently and by definition POV in nature". I think that answers your first question?

As for your second, linguistics does try to reflect the values of the people who speak the languages, but very often changes in names to avoid offense turn out to have been unnecessary or in vain, and they can cause accessibility issues not unlike the change to simplified Chinese. Often linguists will use an endonym with people who are familiar with it, but conclude that the exonym is preferable for general publication. — kwami (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your weaseling means nothing to me, Kwami, this does not have to do with "POV", this has to do with "offensive" per "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.". And reality that should be reflected here is the self-identification and self-respect of the Sarcee people which is a reality in modern Canada, if not in your linguistics department wherever the frack it is. You should really read up on indigenous/cultural sensitivity boyo. Unless you'd aver the "Kike" is OK instead of Jew or "nigger" is ok for Black Americans. Quoting myself back at me without even understanding what I'm saying and misapplying it is typical for you; pullling out all the stops huh? More WP:BAITing perhaps?

I forgot: Anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or acting in bad faith.

You might want to (a) demonstrate that the name is actually offensive, and (b) demonstrate that the literature has responded by changing the name commonly used. — kwami (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Both of you, take the language and sarcasm down several pegs please. If you carry on like this both of you are going to end up with someone, not me, but others will also see it, taking both of you to WP:ANI.

Skookum, please provide a source that the name is offensive. We do have practice avoiding such names as "Gypsies" so if you can make a sourced case it will be listened to. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll find one for sure; obsolete terms with offensive and derisive overtones may still be common in linguistics scholarship in modern times, but that's a sad comment on the mores and lack of cultural sensitivity of that field and not just among wikipedians who only care about that field. Slavey, Dogrib, Sarcee, Eskimo and others are no longer in common use in Canada and with good reason. These are real people, not books on a shelf and folks around here should wake up and smell the coffee.Skookum1 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Good, please do, and please notify me of any RM where you intend to challenge an offensive name, I and the majority of editors will in most cases support such a move. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@In Ictu oculi: I will not file an RM here yet (being tired and bored of discussions where the same pack of obstinate naysayers pop in with irrational claims), but the reality of this term's negative and derogatory origins was noted by John Swanton, quoted here on the Canadian genealogy website in his article on this people - "From the Siksika (Blackfoot) words sa arsi, "not good." Somewhere else on the same or similar site I found a more explicit statement that this name is considered derisive/derogatory, I'll return with it once I find it.Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dogrib people has already been moved to the special-character form of Tłı̨chǫ, my intent when I get a chance is to file an RM to Tlicho on that, likewise Tłı̨chǫ language which I also moved, as there are redirects in the way; I hadn't gotten to Slavey people/language yet as there's Sahtu already for the North Slavey and a move of Slavey people to Deh Cho is problematic as that's just one group of the South Slavey, per also advice and sympathies from User:Kmoksy in discussions about that, I'm not sure if on his talkpage, mine or on the people talkpage. It's so blatantly racist it's quite shocking to see, actually.Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It was on his talkpage, quoting it here "The name Slavey (derived from slave [its loan translation from Cree Awokànak (lit. «slaves»)], and the suffix -y cannot cover its bad meaning: they are not slave, also nobody is not slave) is very very racist. This is a snub. The "Slavey" proper is the South "Slavey" and formerly called as Etchaottine (nowadays as Echo Dene in the name of Echo Dene School, Fort Liard). Dene Tha (for people) and Dene Dháh (for language) [in Alberta] and Dehcho [in Northern Territories] for the South "Slavey" (tr:Denetalar for this people, and tr:Denetaca for their language)."Skookum1 (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I always found the name "Slave" rather astounding. But this is the Sarcee article. — kwami (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is and if you'd educate yourself instead of pontificating from on top of your pile of linguistics sources, you'd have read Tsuu T'ina Nation and noted this passage:

"The Tsuu T'ina people have formerly been called the Sarsi or Sarcee, words which are believed to have been derived from a Blackfoot word meaning stubborn ones. This is in reference to territorial conflict between the Tsuu T'ina and the Blackfoot Confederacy. The term is now viewed as offensive by most of the Tsuu T'ina.[citation needed]"

I added the citation needed tag, as someone else here had asked for a reference; I'll see who added that passage to that article and find where they got that from; probably it was a member of the group.Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The change to the article containing that was added by Da Chair on Feb 20 2008, I'll see if he/still is still active and if he/she can provide a citation. Note the former wording, which was in place from early on in the article's history.Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That editor hasn't been active since 2008, he was a student from Calgary and would have been adding that from personal knowledge/acquaintance with the people whose reserve/community is part of Greater Calgary. His userpage says that he had been editing wikipedia for some time without an account, and lists only three articles he worked on, including the Tsuu T'ina Nation one, a school called Almadina in Calgary, and Nauru; he also edited the Calgary article to include that school. It is unlikely I will get a response from him so will investigate other sources for this statement. That passage was in place since 2008 and you'd think editors of this article about the language would have read the related people/government page by now....Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Move to Tsuutina language

I've returned this article to it's previous location. Given moves that have recently been requested at WP:RM it's questionable that such a move would be uncontroversial. Suggest a move to Tsuutina language be conducted as a move request.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So why didn't you make this same objection when Kwami moved thousands of articles without discussion or procedure of any kind, other than referring to his own self-authored guideline? (I've just discovered the "FOO people" titles found in Australian indigenous articles were also his work, without consulting WP:Australia too). Why don't your revert all of those??? I haven't begun language RMs yet, though in many cases the native term is now part of modern English; the name given is that on the Tsuu Tina website, not taht you care about what they prefer to use, given your objection to WP:ETHNICGROUP's validity.

If we are talking about this article. The previously move was made 3 years ago, it became the defacto standard as it was never opposed. That being said, If I'd been following it 3 years ago I likely would have opposed a broad move of that nature. It unfortunately doesn't take away from the fact that the current name of this article appears to be more common in contemporary sources.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WHICH "contemporary sources? Using foreign sources means that people unaware of the changes in Canadian English usage get shoved aside, as explained elsewhere about imposing global-reach search results to replace modern, now-accepted norms. YOu haven't looked at those RMs from last year where this logic was completely refuted, have you??Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Show me a policy where you can limit sources by nationality.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at sources from 2005-2014: "Sarcee language" -wikipedia 51 hits[1], "Tsuutina language" -wikipedia 0 hits[2] "Tsuu T'ina language" -wikipedia 2 hits[3]--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

re misrepresentation/fabrication in edit comment

Re this, which is a subtextual accussation/NPA, I never said that Tsuutina is a different language than the Sarcee title, and "archaically" is true as far as the people themselves and modern Canadian English is concerned; claiming that wording was "censorship" is total rubbish.Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wording in lead re. "formerly known as Sarcee or Sarsi"

@Kwamikagami, please substantiate why you want to change "The Tsuutʼina language (formerly known as Sarcee or Sarsi)" to read "The Tsuutʼina language, traditionally known as Sarcee or Sarsi". The name Sarcee/Sarsi is disused. If you want to change 'formerly' to 'traditionally', please explain by whose 'tradition' the name "Sarcee/Sarsi" is used. Thanks. CplDHicks2 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Anglophone tradition. It's the ISO name, and used by Ethnologue and Glottolog. The claim that it is "formerly" known as Sarcee is false, and you know it's false.

Perhaps we should move it back to 'Sarcee' to head off more false edits like this. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Wooooooow, by this line of thinking you'd argue the article "Black people" should begin with "Black people, traditionally known as coloreds or negroes"; it's "Anglophone tradition" after all, lol... Yikes.

This language, and the people who speak it, are absolutely, positively not called "Sarcee" anymore by anyone of any good repute, and haven't been for 20+ years. The very idea that they are is laughable. It's deprecated. Come to the Tsuut'ina Nation and tell the people their language is called "Sarcee"; at best you'll be laughed at. More than likely accusations of colonialism—if not bigotry—would be levied at you.

Your appeal to "the ISO name", Ethnologue and Glottolog is flimsy at best. They're not three authoritative references: it's just one, incestuously self-referenced thrice over. Ethnologue and Glottolog defer to "the ISO name", and "the ISO name" is "the Ethnologue name": they're maintained by the exact same people, SIL International. And our very own article about ISO 639-3 has an entire subsection about how problematic it can be to give deference to this one "source". Morey, Post and Friedman list several issues with it [4] (bolded is my emphasis):

(1) use of both The Ethnologue as the basis for ISO 639-3’s “three-letter codes” and of SIL as its registration authority is problematic for a number of reasons

(2) in-principle “arbitrary” (but in fact not arbitrary) “mnemonic” labels of ISO 639-3 have the potential to enshrine offensive designations for language communities, and in fact currently do so

(3) decision-making processes in ISO 639-3 are currently excessively centralized and privilege the views of a minority of the linguistics community

(4) the in-principle “permanency” of language codes such as those of ISO 639-3 is fundamentally incompatible with the nature of human languages, which are demonstrably impermanent

5) the structure of ISO 639-3 has a serious potential to be misunderstood, misused, and in fact abused by decision-making bodies (such as arms of government in various political contexts)

In reality the common name in English is "Tsuut'ina", and it has been since at least the turn of the century. Just look at the references already present in this article. McDonough, O'Loughlin and Cox's work [5]: "This study is part of the documentation and conservation of Tsuut'ina (Sarcee, Sarsi; ISO 639-3: srs), a northern Dene (Athabascan) language". The Global News story about stop signs [6]: "The institute’s vision is to revitalize the Tsuut’ina language". The CBC story about the high school [7]: "The Tsuut'ina language was almost lost and it's had a real rejuvenation. It's taught as full immersion at the K-4 level and there's a big push to make sure it's secure for the future".

I didn't realize how... persistent... you've been about moving this article to "Sarcee language"; you'd done it once before, 12 years ago. [8] Nor had I noticed the acrimony you've participated in as evinced by the discussions above. A decade ago you seem to have had the exact same argument [9]. You seem to have a problem, friend. I don't know what your motives are, but you obviously aren't afraid to cast aspersions on anyone who dares to oppose your edits to this article. It's not productive, and as much as I absolutely loathe people who refer to Wikipedia policies, I think you need a reminder to assume good faith. CplDHicks2 (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

None of your cites above claim it's the "former" name, they simply list it as a synonym. And none claim it's derogatory.

Regardless of your feelings of the ISO (and no, Glottolog does not blindly use ISO names), ISO usage is current usage. Obviously. None of your quoted critiques of the ISO codes are about the name. One of them argues that Tsuutʼina/Sarcee is not a permanent language and therefore should not receive a permanent language code. That's a weird point to bring up.

If you have a RS that "Sarcee" is derogatory, we can (and should) mention that.

As for casting aspersions, you appear to simply be lying about what sources say, as if you think that repeating a falsehood makes it true. Provide sources for your claims rather than just ranting. Rants aren't going to convince anyone you're right even if you are. — kwami (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So you are only going to be satisfied that "Sarcee" is a disused name if I find a source that says "'Sarcee' is a disused name", rather than the demonstrable (and demonstrated) fact that it *is* disused (other than a poor source that you're entirely relying on). That's just... baffling. Again, by the same logic: provide me a source that says "Sarcee" is a "traditional" name. I can wait. We can all wait.

Forever.

Because you won't find one.

Aaaaaand once again your throwing around accusations that I'm "lying", "repeating falsehoods" and "ranting" is neither helpful nor productive. Again, a reminder: be civil. CplDHicks2 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like "traditional", pick some other word.

But "former" means it's no longer used, and yes, you do need a RS to make a claim like that. Which may be difficult because it clearly still is used. And yes, I'll call out dishonesty when I encounter it. And yes, long screeds with no supporting sources do count as "rants".

You could well be correct, but claims require evidence. Please see WP:TRUTH. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Had I not been so hasty to quote only the abstract of the conference paper that's already referenced, I would have realized the actual paper itself reads "This study is part of the documentation and conservation of Tsuut'ina (formerly Sarcee, Sarsi; ISO 639-3: srs) [...]". I've added the quote in the citation. I've added another from Cox, one of the linguists of the UofA who presented the aforementioned at the International Congress on Acoustics, from an address he gave at the 2011 Athabaskan Languages Conference in Whitehorse.

Again, I'll remind you to be civil. Being supercilious and belligerent is not helpful. CplDHicks2 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, 'formerly' according to one source, but still used in others, so not really 'formerly'. I'm not sure how best to handle this, will bring it up at the language project. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)