Talk:Plains Indian Sign Language

How many, if any, of these sign languages are still actively used. A few people may still remember some signs, but are there people actively using these languages today? Pete unseth (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe it's still used among the Crow and some others. Used at least for story telling. No idea how widespread understanding is. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fascinating. If certain standardized motions are used to accompany certain meanings/events in storytelling, is that truly a sign language? Fun to ponder, harder to answer.Pete unseth (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't accompany storytelling, it's the mode used for storytelling. I think sometimes oral speech is used as well, but AFAIK that's just to make it accessible to those who do not know sign: the oral mode is not required. (Also, the oral mode may be English: presumably because not everyone knows Crow? Actually, I don't know if sign is ever accompanied by Crow.) — kwami (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, some still use it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The boxes on the side for the list of related languages aren't mentioned anywhere in the document, and the list is long enough that it's interfering with formatting on other sections. Is it reasonable to remove them? Perhaps there could be a section added to the main article addressing these related languages?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Garton kevin (talk • contribs)

@Garton kevin: Are you referring to the dialect list in the infobox? I'm not sure what you mean by the "boxes on the side for the list of related languages". This is a language isolate, meaning there are no "related" languages in the historical linguistics sense of the term. AviationFreak💬 13:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was referring to the dialect infoboxes. It looks like those were removed by you in this update. Thank you, that addresses my concern. Garton kevin (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh haha, I thought you had just recently posted this because it was just recently tagged with {{Unsigned}} and that's the only talk page diff I saw before responding. Glad it's been fixed! AviationFreak💬 13:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the article states that Plains Sign Talk is the preferred name in Canada, and uses Plains Sign Talk throughout the article. However, some quick tests on Google Trends, Scholars (PSL vs PST), JSTOR (PSL vs PST), ngram, and Google (PSL vs PST) show that Plains Sign Language is more frequently used than Plains Sign Talk by a fair margin, and the Canadian Encyclopedia and most Canadian news coverage seems to prefer the name Plains Sign Language. I'd like to change all mentions of Plains Sign Talk to Plains Sign Language, and remove the paragraph in the lead that says that Plains Sign Talk is the preferred name in Canada due to the pejorative nature of the term Indian. Any thoughts? Aamri2 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Only some consider "Indian" pejorative. If it is in the source, and the source is by a Native person, or is otherwise reliable (if in doubt, bring it up at the wikiproject), keep "Indian" in the name and in the text. Many tribal nations and organizations, as well as individuals, still use "Indian". Others feel it's an in-group term and just don't want non-Natives using it. It varies.

If you take out "Indian", without swapping in an equivalent term (which looks like it would be WP:OR, so, not a thing to do), how will those unfamiliar with the topic, who just see the title, know this is a Native thing? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi CorbieVreccan, there's already been discussion about removing Indian and moving the page. That is not what I am proposing, since PISL is still undeniably the more common term (though it seems PSL is starting to catch up), and I see no reason in reopening that discussion right now. As an aside, I don't think there's any reason for the title to necessarily specify that this is a Native thing if it's not part of the common name. After all, it's called Ojibwe language and not Ojibwe Indian/Indigenous/First Nation language. It could probably go into the short description.

What I'm proposing is replacing all mentions of Plains Sign Talk with Plains Sign Language, since the former isn't as well attested and doesn't seem to be used the way the article suggests (without a source to corroborate, mind), and the latter is quite well attested. The article would still be called Plains Indian Sign Language and any mentions of that name would remain unaffected. I also want to remove the paragraph in the lead which says that PST is used in Canada due to the pejorative nature of Indian, since I couldn't find any source directly claiming exactly that for either PST or PSL. Although it looks like you've already removed that as I was typing this. Aamri2 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard anyone call it PST, instead PSL or PISL. I'm with you on changing the name use throughout to either one.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think a shorter form is good for repetitive use in the article body. I think we need "Indian" or similar in the article title so it's clear to those browsing that it's a Native thing. Aamri, having a specific tribe named is also indicating it's a Native thing, as opposed to, say, just a regional thing. Best wishes - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, CorbieVreccan. I'll go ahead and make the change within the article, since it seems everyone's in agreement.

Even though I'm not proposing it right now, while I agree that it's important people recognize it for what it is, the current policy on article titles in Wikipedia favours the common name of a subject, as well as concision (among other criteria). If there were other sign languages called (variations of) Plains Sign Language, then there might be an issue with precision, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And I would argue that anyone familiar enough with the subject to recognize the name Plains Indian Sign Language as a North American Indigenous thing rather than an Indian thing would probably also recognize Plains Sign Language, and anyone who wouldn't recognize the latter would remain unclear on the former. If and when that discussion arises (e.g. due to a shift in convention, maybe as the language becomes better-known), I would support renaming the article. (Alternatives like Plains Indigenous Sign Language do exist, but I think they're not nearly common enough to be the article title. If people preferred that, though, I wouldn't oppose it). Aamri2 (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why does this say North American, and then include Mexico? I'll check the sourcing here but this needs cleanup. I've only seen and heard of Plains people using it. Are editors confusing present-day Mexico with territories that used to be considered part of Mexico but are not part of the U.S.? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's a source in the main article contending that PSL may have originated in Northern Mexico and near Texas, but I still need to go back through the books I've read to see what the majority views are. I've definitely seen Mexico mentioned elsewhere, though. I'm currently working on the Phonology section with one more major addition coming in before I start cleaning it up and reorganizing, but I'll be revamping the history section and adding a grammar section after that. FWIW, Mexico is part of North America by most classifications. Aamri2 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Putting this down here instead of necro-ing an old section. We have to find a substitute source for Iron Eyes Cody or cut that content completely. For all the reasons. Above, an editor argued for inclusion based on the use of other non-Native sources. But... Non-Natives who've established academic integrity in the field can be used. Mr de Corti lied about, well, everything. He simply cannot be trusted as a source since his moneymaking ability, as an actor, an author, and it seems his whole sense of identity, was based on a series of lies. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Aside from the issues with his character, I just looked through the cited book and it doesn't seem to talk about phonology at all! Either this is some very impassioned WP:OR, where someone went and counted all of the orientations etc in the book (unlikely! the book is hardly detailed or extensive enough to come up with a nice little list like this without a lot of work) or it's cited to the wrong source entirely. I'll remove the citations and see if I can replace them later. For now I'll citation needed. Aamri2 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

On further review, I fear the entire existing list of parameters (Handshape, Movement, Location, Orientation) is WP:OR. The list of handshapes is slightly synthesized from Mallery's list (pictured immediately next to it), and the rest of the lists are probably synthesized from the Cody handbook. I'll remove it in a bit (and move the Mallery image to the top of the Phonology section for now, adding alt text for all the text in the image), to allow you or others the chance to respond if you think I'm mistaken. I'll also look through history to see if it might be a misplaced citation.

Even worse, most of the non-West phonological description might not have been written about PISL in the first place — I can't access that exact edition of the Bergmann et al textbook, but I'll check out a slightly more recent edition to figure it out once and for all. If anyone has access to the cited edition, it would also be helpful. Aamri2 (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

As suspected, the original addition would be considered WP:SYNTH today, I think. Later edits obscured this by talking specifically about PISL rather than sign languages in general. Aamri2 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The next edit makes it even more apparent. I'll remove the lists, and rework the other parts later. Thanks for bringing attention to this! Aamri2 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking and doing the edits! - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just posted a reminder in an edit summary and will note it here again: RS sources, and two of us who are actively editing, have all stated that this sign language is in current use. I am not a fluent speaker, but I know a bit and have seen those with far more ability in it use it in my home. I know those who use it. Indigenous cultures are not always accessible to non-Natives, so there is some understandable ignorance around these topics. Incomplete sources by non-Natives have to be evaluated with this in mind, especially if they are older publications, that were published in an era before Natives were getting mainstream degrees and publishing sources now considered RS. But, we now have RS sources from experts on the cultures, from within the cultures themselves, and these need to be prioritized over those by anthros (or pretendians) who only had limited access (or no access). Thanks. And again, "Indian" is not a slur to many groups and individuals who still use it. If it's the most common name used for something by Natives, and in sources by Natives and in official names of Native-run orgs, for example, please do not change it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for not past-tensing Indigenous cultures and whatnot; I believe in it firmly, in fact. Still, I do not think it is accurate to say that it is (presently) a lingua franca/inter-tribal language/other such term, because that's not the purpose that it serves anymore according to the sources. It's a sign language that was historically a lingua franca. For example, Italian is a historical lingua franca, but no one would construe that to mean Italian is not a language anymore. I've put in a wording that emphasizes its extant use. How's this? Aamri2 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed this in recent edits. I think we need to be careful with our use of lingua franca. Linguists know the loanwords, but the general reader may not. We can link it in the body of the article, but the short description should be accessible to the general reader. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I like this short description, especially since I think peoples emphasizes the multiple distinct groups. Indians doesn't make it the clearest that it is used by more than one Nation. And I agree about avoiding technical words in short descriptions. Thanks! Aamri2 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm at a loss to understand why the Coeur d'Alene, Sanpoil, Okanagan, Thompson, Lakes, Shuswap, and Colville are described as "eastern" here, when they could only be considered so to coastal residents, who don't figure in the article. In relation to the rest of the continent, they're about as western as they could get without getting wet. Laodah 03:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply