User talk:CorbieVreccan
You can reach me must faster via my talk page on en-wiki. CorbieVreccan (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Please don't be too aggressive about removing citations etc. that you feel uncomfortable with. Part of lexicography is documenting past/historical usage -- even if the texts are not what we would write today. Equinox ◑ 20:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Read the talk page. I'm an admin on en-wiki. All of this is still documented. No history has been erased. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Preserving the history of colonists raping and enslaving indigenous people, and how that's reflected in the terminology white authors applied to the indigenous people in the anthropology books they authored, would probably fit better in the WP article. I'm in no way opposed to preserving that history. It needs to be preserved. But, It should just be made clear that it is a colonial narrative, and not what the people being denigrated and assaulted have to say about themselves, and not something that is currently condoned, or in current definitions or current usage. I assume no one here wants to be "neutral" about rape and other sexual predation, which is what we're dealing with when the anthro "berdache" stuff is used. The only source I removed was the guy who writes about sex in general who said it was "lucky" to have sex with a two spirit. The people he's objectifying that way found that statement horrific and threatening. Non-Native's opinions about sex are not RS on this topic. CorbieVreccan (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- What is "RS"? A citation is a citation because it's a use of the word, regardless of its meaning. If a word was first used in 1700 but it was used by someone whose politics you disliked, we wouldn't remove it because it's still proof that the word was used in 1700. Equinox ◑ 07:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- LOL, the quote was from 2009, not 1700, by a writer who's not a Reliable Source. The passage about two-spirit in their book about sex was laughably wrong, and full of ignorant, third-hand stereotypes about Indigenous people. That sort of stuff is an embarrassment to the project. Misinformation is not "neutral" or "political". The term "two-spirit" was coined in 1990. Maybe read the sources first, so you can understand what terms mean before you tell others how to define them? Cheers, CorbieVreccan (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. And, because sources aren't cited here the same way they are, say, on the 'pedia, I think it's important that any quotes and cites given on the page are from reliable sources as that's where readers are probably most inclined to look for further info. As there are better sources, there's no reason to have ones with misinformation here. CorbieVreccan (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- They aren't sources for anything other than the fact that the word was used. That's why your feelings about the quotations (or my feelings, for that matter) are largely irrelevant; we just want to document how the term is and has been used. You may find our policy on quotations and our brief guide to Wiktionary for Wikipedians to be helpful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- What is "RS"? A citation is a citation because it's a use of the word, regardless of its meaning. If a word was first used in 1700 but it was used by someone whose politics you disliked, we wouldn't remove it because it's still proof that the word was used in 1700. Equinox ◑ 07:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain your edit summary here? It looks to me like you removed a set of translations as unsourced that included a link to an online Cheyenne dictionary which indeed has entries for those words [1] (see starting with "he'émane" under "H"). Or are you saying that it's not a valid source- "after all it's just written by Cheyenne Indians- what do they know?". Please stop acting as judge, jury and executioner based on Wikipedia policies and your personal feelings. This is not Wikipedia, and you are just one of many contributors. I suspect the only reason you haven't been blocked yet is that you obviously are quite ignorant of everything about Wiktionary, and you think you're doing the right thing. Probably the best place to discuss this entry is the Tea room, though the Beer parlour would be the place for discussing matters of policy. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- The citation didn't link anywhere. The numbered note didn't link, and the words, while they looked correct from what I recall from the dictionary, were redlinked. I will add the Cheyenne entries back, but the others were machine-translations into languages for cultures that don't have this concept, so were mistranslations of this idiom. See the earlier discussion on the talk page of the entry. CorbieVreccan (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)