Talk:Wasi'chu

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Popular culture

I just restored the cited references of the word in popular culture. Since the Law and Order episode has its own standalone Wikipedia article, it's hardly an "extremely minor incident." -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Spelling Consistency

The spelling of the word "wasi'chu" is quite inconsistent throughout this article. Since there do exist quite a number of spellings considered correct in their own system of writing the Lakota language, some discussion of this should occur in the article. I'm not too sharp at coming up with how it should be formatted or worked in to the article, but I can provide the information that needs to be added. So, if someone would be willing to work with me on this, we can improve this article some. Thanks, Ζρς ιβ' ^¡hábleme! 20:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

In some Dakota/Lakota museum, one exhibit stated that washichu means "those who wear ugly clothes".--Manfariel (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a discussion that contradicts the meaning expressed in this article stating that it means "someone with special powers" and offers an etymology of the word. It would seem appropriate to include this material as an alternative meaning and explanation. ^[1] (Jonvanv (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ http://www.native-languages.org/iaq20.htm

Sourcing

@Oncamera: per this change to the spelling, that's the spelling in the cited source. If we're going to change it, and I have no objection to updating it, we should also update the source. Thanks for your work on this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate dictionary doesn't spell it like so and I thought that's the one sourced at the top. Otherwise, it can be updated. oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's where I got it. Go to the link, make sure it's set to English -> Dakota, and type in "white". Result in right hand column after ska is

"◆ white man⇾ waṡicuƞ"

Again, I don't want to use an outdated version, but it would be best if we could put in a source that aligns. Hmmmm. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have two orthographies in the dictionary, the wasisun spelling is from the Williamson orthography, not the one they developed. If you search Wasicu, it's there under the SWO orthography, therefore aligns with the sources unless you want to use the Williamson orthography via the missionary John Poage Williamson. oncamera _{(talk page)} 01:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Could you add in a footnote to clarify this? If we can't link to it directly (I can't figure out how), that should forestall anyone changing it back. Thanks for explaining! - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source for how the SWO dictionary utilizes their own orthography first and supplements it with the Williamson orthography. You can add the footnote since I really don't see the need to use the other spelling that is unfamiliar to me as a Dakota person -- it's something you're demanding. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm not "demanding" additional sourcing, I just think it would be helpful. The current link just goes to the main dictionary, and readers have to figure out what to put in to get the result. I suggested you do it because of your experience with the language. You don't have to do it. We're all volunteers here. Peace, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Definitions

In the lead, or lede, of this article says "wasicu" means "white man" or "white person" but that is taken out of context as translated because that is NOT what is means literally. "White man" in Lakota would be "wica ska" (or "ska wica" word for word). "wasicu" means "non-indian" which is what the "white man" definition is referring to, "white-man" as defined does not mean a white-skinned man. Black man would be "wica sapa", but a black-skinned man would also be "wisacu". "wisacu" is not referring to a skin-color or race as this article makes it sound, it just means a foreigner (and I mean a non-indian foreigner, a domestic foreigner would be "thoka") and this is why this is explicitly defined this way but this article has taken that out of context and presented it in a way readers are going to assume it refers to race, especially when it references the wiki article to "white people" and says "While it commonly refers to white people[4] and the language they speak", which is absolutely false.

The English language in Lakota is "wasicuiyapi" and someone who is English or British would be "Saglasa".

The appropriate definition for English speakers of "wasicu" (properly spelled Wašíču) in Lakota is "non-indian" or "foreigner" as this is what we mean by this word. This should be corrected in the lead. It does go on to clarify this, which further makes my point, there is no reason to state that in the first place because a non-Lakota person isn't going to understand the translation properly. OnePercent (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New Lakota Dictionary defines wasicu as, "White person, Caucasian, person of European or Euro-American ancestry or culture." Riggs Dakota-English dictionary defines it as Frenchmen or "All white men in general". Lakota/Dakota call blacks "hasapa" (ha, skin; sapa, black) or "wasicu sapa". Asian people are "Hazila/Haziga" wichasa/winyan, Japanese people are Kisunla/Kisunna wichasa/winyan, Chinese people are Phechokan Hanska, Mexican people are Spaola/Spayo wichasa/winyan, etc. Native Americans in general are all ikce-wichasa (ordinary people). There are many words for many other races -- wasicu isn't the word for foreigners. In fact, Lakota people use words like Lakota-thokeca or unma-Lakota for anyone who isn't Lakota, thus a foreigner. And also, the term "Saglasa" for the British is a borrowed term from the Ojibwe who borrowed it from the French word for the English, "Les Anglois", thus not originally Lakota. oncamera _{(talk page)} 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

I added the unbalanced tag into the etymology section as its white men writing about the word definition, perhaps even redefining it. There is a lack of Indigenous viewpoints and when I added one, another editor removed it. There needs to be a balance here, wasicu are being wasicu about the word meaning. oncamera _{(talk page)} 20:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks - I've edited the etymology section down again to make more balanced and to reflect Sioux people's own views on the issue (sorry - I probably got a bit carried away yesterday and included POV which shouldnt have been there).

I think getting into a discussion of folk knowledge vs academic knowledge is going to be a farily fruitless. I would only suggest that speakers of all languages (hundreds of examples in English!) tend to report stories about the origins of the words they use; stories that on more detailed investigation turn out to be not correct. Atrapalhado (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please on folk etymology as the wikipedia article says there are 2 uses. 1) covered in the Wikipedia article titled folk etymology - a linguistics term where a word gets changed over time to words users are familiar with eg asparagus which got changed in some english dialects to sparrow grass 2) what wikipedia calls false etymology but says can also be called folk etymology. Where a word is given a pooular explanation of its origin which might not be historically accurate.

clearly the meaning intended in the wasicu article's reference to folk etymology is not the meaning discussed in the wikipedia article titled folk etymology. I think it's fine to point to the false etymology article which says "folk etymology" is an alternative term.

But if you feel strongly about it I suggest just removing a blue link to the word. Atrapalhado (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't use the term "folk etymology" therefore we shouldn't added original research to the article. I replaced that term with what is used in the sources. oncamera _{(talk page)} 13:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok Atrapalhado (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasi'chu wasicu or wašíču

Hi i think its worth discussing this on talk page.

The Lakota/Dakota word is wašíču or waṡicu. If we are talking specifically about the Sioux word we should respect the orthography of those languages and use the correct spelling. As a foreign language word - per wikipedia policy - it should be italicised.

When the word is used in English language sources it has been spelt either wasi'chu (see [[Alice Walker]] and lots of others) or wasicu (see Nick Estes and lots of others). I agree this English language use should probably not be italicised.

No dakota/lakota dictionary says wasi'chu (or wasicu) is a valid alternative spelling in those languages.

Atrapalhado (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the same word, different spelling (See MOS:ALTNAME). See words like Aluminum and Mercury (element). The source goes into the different orthographies used by different the tribes. The source also goes into detail about how there's not a standard orthography for the dialects so the same words are spelled differently in different ones.

The MOS:FOREIGNITALIC says to not italicize if it's a foreign word common in English and this article says Wasicu has been popularized in English since the 1970s. It does not need to be in italics. We don't italicize tipi, Sioux, Lakota, Dakota etc for the same reason. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's two different languages being discussed here. I think it's quite rude to Lakota/Dakota speakers to just ignore the correct spelling - and the fact it is a different language - when we're discussing the origin of a word in their language. Note that in Dakota/Lakota š is a different letter to s, this isn't just a nicely of accents thst can be ignored. Atrapalhado (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nicety Atrapalhado (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted back to my version because the source does not claim the alternate spellings are "Sioux" versions, only that there's alternative ways to spell the word based on the different orthographies. One of the orthographies that is used by the Lakota was popularized by a Czech linguist even, and the other was popularized by another non-Dakota linguist so it's not even a true claim that these are "Sioux spellings". And there's no source claiming these are somehow different languages from the English use either. It's a Dakota/Lakota word used by English speakers. Refrain from adding original research to the article. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a compromise - can you live with this? I still think wašíču in the text should be italicised but I've got better things to do than pursue a fight over italicisation on a wikpedia page! Atrapalhado (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The different orthographies aren't actually assigned to the different dialects as you write it. There are Lakota/Dakota who use the LLC standardized spelling (what you're calling Lakota in the article) and there are Lakota/Dakota who use the other version developed by Albert White Hat. You can see this chart for the various spellings: orthography of the Sioux oncamera _{(talk page)} 20:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes - the reference to different language spellings came from an earlier editor. I have corrected so we are referring only to Lakota which is what we have the source for Atrapalhado (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source includes Dakota and Lakota. I'm restoring it to the source. oncamera _{(talk page)} 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source NOTE CONCERNING LAKOTA SIOUX TERMS FOR WHITE AND NEGRO uses Dakota and Lakota and lists various ways the word has been written down from the languages which were oral only prior to the arrival of Europeans. Refrain from adding original research and use the source in the opening paragraph. oncamera _{(talk page)} 23:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi we're really debating quite a minor point here, please try and be friendly - we're on the same side :-) - I'm not adding unsourced material, we're just discussing how to present it.

There are conventions - admittedly various - of Sioux orthography, which should be respected (I think Lakota/Dakota speakers would be surprised at the idea that we can just ignore them because they're colonial inventions!) All of them respect the difference between s and š - and certainly none of them use wash'icu or even wasicu.

Which is a long way of saying, all I'm objecting to is the characterisation of wash'icu or wasicu as alternative spellings of the Sioux word. So I've corrected it so it doesn't say that - please, this is a compromise with your concerns: from my point of view we should be making a clearer line between the English and Sioux usage, but I am trying to work with you. Atrapalhado (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.native-languages.org/iaq20.htm

[1]