Talk:Native American mascot controversy

Archives (Index)

2017 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdb337.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes to Cite Templates

The changes to the "cite news" and "cite web" templates have required hundreds of edits to parameters that had been optional or flexible. About half done.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

done--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Citing an opinion

User:Sandcherry: A reliable source for financial information (Forbes) published a marketing expert's opinion regarding the continued use of Native American imagery using the cliche phrase "the wrong side of history". I see nothing to explain or discuss.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to User:CorbieVreccan for going back to the source to clarify rather than merely delete.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How does a marketing background qualify this expert to opine on the right or wrong side of history? Sandcherry (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A financial consultant is quoted in the financial section about the historical financial impact of racially- and culturally-insensitive mascots. By comparing past branding mistakes (mistakes because the companies lost money) to current ones, they are delineating a pattern and making a prediction based on historical precedent. It's clear if you read the source. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "wrong side of history" implies no expertise beyond the particular field being addressed. It is merely a way of saying something is out-of-date, sending a different message, certainly something a marketing expert knows about. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The section was revised to retain the marketing analyst's opinion and remove the nonspecific "wrong side of history" cliché. Sandcherry (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sandcherry - The wording by CorbieVreccan captures the source, which is the expert's opinion that continuing to use racial references for marketing in the 21st century is being "on the wrong side of history". It may be a cliché, but it captures the specific meaning intended, justifying the quote. Leaving it out implies a simple comparison between the "Frito Bandito" and mascots without historical context, which is an oversimplification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Trimming excesses

This article needs reduction in size for readability so I will give it a try, beginning with further reduction of details that can be found in linked articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Making progress towards the goal of ~125K.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The "page size" tool shows the article as having a "Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8530 words) 'readable prose size'".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Split proposed

The section on the KC Chiefs may have reach a size warranting a split into a separate article, as with the Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, and Washington Redskins. An alternative would be to create a section in the team article for much of the content here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

K.C. Chiefs were named for Mayor Bartle and not Native Americans

Despite a history of using Native American mascots, arrows, and even the Tomahawk Chop, the team was actually named for "Chief" Bartle.[1][2] What the Chiefs name less controversial is the fact that Bartle was also a civil rights champion who oversaw desegregation in Kansas City.[3] The Native American stuff was clearly added over time.Mancalledsting (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The role of Bartle in the Chiefs naming was clear before the recent edits. I have done the split which I proposed in April, so its now a moot point anyway.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup of KC Chiefs section: there were four naked references which I converted to citation formats. In the process, it became clear that they said the same thing, or otherwise included details not needed in the summary of the team.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I Don't Appreciate Erasing Good Edits

Andrew wasn't even using "speculation" and was using timeline statistics on how close the season is and how it hurts the name change possibility for this year.[4] Head Ron Rivera is even quoted in the Washington Post article which acknowledged a lack of communication with the Native American petitioners as stating the Redskins "wanted to continue “honoring and supporting Native Americans and our Military.”[5] At times, defeat is hard to accept, but we all have to suck it up in order to get through life.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please rethink your approach, as veiled personal attacks and aspersions will eventually lead to a block. The opinion of Andrew Brandt (presumably not the same Andrew Brandt) would still need to be attributed as one opinion, in one podcast. Sources like this are very poor for demonstrating WP:DUE, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Likewise, Don Rivera's PR is not a neutral addition to the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, let us rethink the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Comments like "Don Rivera's PR is not a neutral addition to the article" and "opinion of Andrew Brandt" do not demonstrate that you are cooperating with this policy. Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE as well. They only refer to using Wikipedia like a newspaper and undue weight. I'm afraid my proper edits with encyclopedic information were relevant enough to not be erased.Mancalledsting (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In my revert, I was using speculation in the specific meaning of predicting the future. No matter the expertise or reliability of the source, WP should not include anything about events that have not yet occurred. This is a GA, and already too large, so it does not need to include everything that will be mentioned in the coming months just because such predictions are the bread and butter of sports commentators. That a "review of the name" will be undertaken is a fact, its timeline and likely results are not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If I needed a reason to follow the content guidelines stated above, it came in the form of an NBC report based upon a blog post based on a tweet from someone claiming inside information on the names being considered.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead Evaluation

Overall, this lead does a pretty good job describing the topic in a thorough yet concise manner, however there are several ways it could be improved as well. The lead mentions most of the article's major sections, but leaves out three important ones (Civil Rights / Religious Organizations / Legal Proceedings). The lead also has two places (the last sentence of the first paragraph, and the last sentence of the third paragraph) where a citation is not yet present. These sentences in essence say that the number of teams using a Native American mascot are declining, but do not back that up with a source. Fixing these two issues would improve the lead, but otherwise the information provided is relevant and thorough.

DylanElder (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Dylan Elder

I appreciate anyone taking an interest in this article. I have always followed the guideline WP:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, which states that when summarizing information in the body of the article that has citations, there is no need to repeat them in the lead unless the reader is likely to question them. The lead has remained as it is since the GA review, which mainly focused on its establishing notability and neutrality, rather than a preview of particular content. Do you have any specific suggestions for rewording?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@DylanElder: When I responded, I did not know that you are an undergraduate doing an assignment, so my response reflects my assuming Good Faith. While anyone may make contributions, it would be best if students work on C class articles, as the assignment instructions stated.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC I appreciate your response to my evaluation. I am a new Wikipedian, and yes doing an assignment for a class, so I found your notes very helpful, specifically the links to the Citation Manual and Assuming Good Faith pages. As for rewording, I do have one suggestion for the last sentence of the lead. It starts off with the phrase "Although there has been a steady decline in the number of teams doing so" when referring to sports teams using Native American nicknames and logos. The words "doing so" don't really make sense here because that part of the sentence refers to using nicknames, not changing nicknames. What do you think about changing the sentence to: "Although the use of Native American nicknames and logos has steadily declined, they nevertheless remain fairly common in American and Canadian sports at all levels, from youth teams to professional sports franchises." This is just a minor grammatical change, but one that I think makes the sentence easier to read and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanElder (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Repetition of reference

After many years of editing this GA, I have never repeated a reference for each sentence in a paragraph when the citation clearly applies to the whole. This practice has never been questioned by any other editor. I have modified some recent edits to remove the repetitions, and while I was at it changed the ref names to "author.date" which is less likely to create problems in future edits that random naming.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant half of paragraph

Under "Financial impact of change":

Opponents feel that despite the cost of a change in team mascots, it should be done to prevent what they believe is racial stereotyping. Clyde Bellecourt, when director of the American Indian Movement stated: "It's the behavior that accompanies all of this that's offensive. The rubber tomahawks, the chicken feather headdresses, people wearing war paint and making these ridiculous war whoops with a tomahawk in one hand and a beer in the other; all of these have significant meaning for us. And the psychological impact it has, especially on our youth, is devastating."

This isn't "Financial impact of change", and should be moved to another section, esp. since it's not really discussing the financial aspect (remove the words "despite the cost of a change in team mascots," and see). I think a counterpoint should be included, but this isn't it. I don't know where to move these lines though, but they shouldn't be here.

Rewording opening paragraph

Some clarification needed, in particular that offense is taken not due to names such as "Indians" but due to the inappropriate context of sports and the stereotyping that follows.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Braves in the 2021 World Series

@Indefatigable: The appearance of the Braves is a significant event in the context of the Cleveland and Washington decisions to end their racist traditions, and needs to be mentioned here as well as in the linked article. Summarizing is not a reason to delete content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Added new content to the Braves section, removed some 2020 details that are less relevant.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination?

Why is this article part of the "Discrimination" series? The naming controversy isn't discriminatory? It's offensive, insensitive, stubborn, etc. Teams and players that use Native and First Nation monikers are not being discriminated against. As far as I know none of the team naming was done for the purposes of discrimination. I've made my point, but I don't have an answer of what category this should be grouped with. Asherkobin (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination is defined as prejudicial treatment. This article documents that prejudice in great detail.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)