This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chicago Blackhawks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Nicolettebruns.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the sexual assault scandal and subsequent investigation allegedly involving then video coach Brad Aldrich against a player on the 2009-10 Stanley Cup-winning team be discussed in this article? It's huge news. - Prisoned Muffin
Would it be worth mentioning the rivalry that exists between this team and the Vancouver Canucks on this page? Or it would warrant its own page? If anything that rivalry is bigger than the ones vs. St. Louis and Detroit today.-- Xiaoshan Math ( talk) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph under "The Original Six era" historical heading tends to blame the Detroit Red Wings organization--and the Norris family ownership of Chicago Stadium--for the Black Hawks' competitive ineffectiveness. The following is written without footnoted sources:
"Owner and founder Frederic McLaughlin died in 1944. His estate sold the team to a syndicate headed by longtime team president Bill Tobin. However, Tobin was only a puppet for James E. Norris, who now owned the rival Red Wings. Norris had also been the Black Hawks' landlord since his 1936 purchase of Chicago Stadium. For the next eight years, the Norris-Tobin ownership, as a rule, paid almost no attention to the Black Hawks. Nearly every trade made between Detroit and Chicago ended up being Red Wing heists. As a result, for the next several years, Chicago was the model of futility in the NHL. Between 1945 and 1958, they only made the playoffs twice."
What are needed here are footnoted sources of documents, quotes, and other written proof to: 1) Establish that Bill Tobin, as the operative owner of the Chicago Black Hawks, was indeed an agreed provider of lopsided player transactions to the J. E. Norris ownership in Detroit; 2) demonstrate that the Black Hawks faced the threat of eviction from Chicago Stadium if the team didn't service the Red Wings organization with such sweetheart player trades, and; 3) provide transaction information of such player moves, to provide documentation of the so-called "heists". Without these sources, I raise the assertion that the quoted above context is mostly conjecture and heresay; and I would greatly welcome documented support for the asserted content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.232.143 ( talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think what this article says differs from one location to the next, for example the infobox shows no alternate jerseys, whereas the jerseys section refers to the old black alternates that haven't been used in awhile. Beluga boy cup of tea? 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is my first attempt at a Talk Page ourside my own, so I hope I do this right.
The Blackhawks page has a section about the National Anthem because it is noteworthy that the Blackhawks fans Tradition is differently than "normal" Tradition in America as defined by the US Flag Code. Since this section is talking about the US Flag Code, it would be an improvement to add a link to WikiPedia's page on the subject.
I think many readers probably don't know what the US Flag Code is, and a link is a clear improvement.
Also, without identifying the contrast between the Blackhawks Tradition and American Tradition, it is pointless to even have that section.
The link that should be added is this one: [ [3]]
Maybe some text like this would be appropriate? Please provide me with how you feel it should be worded. I don't want it to sounds like any POV, such as making a judgement about the differences, which some people obviously have but is not appropriate here.
Thanks!
Change this: "It is a tradition for Blackhawks fans to applaud and cheer loudly during the singing of the national anthem. This tradition originated during a 1985 Campbell Conference playoff game at Chicago Stadium versus the Edmonton Oilers.[46] Jim Cornelison currently sings the national anthem for all home games."
To this? "In deviation with the US Flag Code, it is a tradition for Blackhawks fans to applaud and cheer loudly during the singing of the national anthem. This tradition originated during a 1985 Campbell Conference playoff game at Chicago Stadium versus the Edmonton Oilers.[46] Jim Cornelison currently sings the national anthem for all home games." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdruid ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Mattdruid (
talk) 15:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. First of all, I'm a big Blackhawks fan and have been to many games, so I know this topic very well. The way that the Blackhawks fan's deviate from the US Flag Code is radically different then any other deviation you see at other sports teams in Chicago or elsewhere. The reason the US Flag Code's National Anthem topic is even noted currently on Wikipedia is a testament to how different it is. The US Flag Code defines the behavior expected while singing the National Anthem. So at very least, we should add a reference to the US Flag Code Wikipedia page. Mattdruid ( talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried to do some digging but couldnt find enough answers, but if others could help out that would be great. I think the blackhawks are the only professional team to win a championship and visit the white house twice while the current president in office is from that teams home town. If we could look into this and add this fact at the end of the 2013 Stanley Cup section.
5-25-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefoot768 ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone needs to change the wording of "Post lockout era" to Salary cap Era. That is the difference post 2005. The NHL has had two lockouts since 2004 and for clarity it would read better and make more sense for it to say salary cap era. The NHL will continue to have lockouts. True hockey fans will read this wording of post lockout era has humorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerCarlson ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-19/news/ct-met-indian-mascots-20130619_1_american-indians-black-hawk-mascots Maybe parts of the article could be used here? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
and, I asked why those people's opinions should be here. Do they represent a large number of people? Are they themselves notable? Dbrodbeck ( talk) 20:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not edit warring! No one has responded to this talk page for a while and I thought it was safe to make a new edit. But you, Dbrodbeck, are reverting my edits with little justification! Am I not allowed to change anything on wikipedia, even if I have explained in depth the reasons for my edit? 206.221.158.70 ( talk) 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since there is contention, here is the content that I propose adding to this, and the other sports team articles:
The use of Native American names, images and symbols is often discussed in terms of offensiveness of particular instances, which reduces it to feelings and opinions of individuals, and prevents full understanding of the history and context of these practices and why they should be eliminated. [4] Social science research says that sports mascots and images, rather than being mere entertainment, are important symbols with deeper psychological and social effects. [5] The accumulation of objective research on the harm done has led many professional organizations representing civil rights, educational, athletic, and scientific experts to adopt resolutions or policies that state that any use of Native American names and/or symbols by non-native sports teams is a form of ethnic stereotyping that promotes misunderstanding and prejudice which contributes to other problems faced by Native Americans. [6] [7]
The first objection I anticipate is that this is "off-topic" because the Blackhawks are not mentioned specifically. However, this is the point; a scholarly, encyclopedic, and neutral point of view often requires such contextualizing in order to avoid trivializing a topic. FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not presenting my likes or dislikes, or anyone else's. There is peer-reviewed science that supports the NCAI and Susan Harjo, and non that is pro-mascot. In a WP article, this should end any debate. There have been POV discussions on the controversy articles already, and none have been sustained. FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) So, if the consensus is that this article is only about the team, then there should be no mention of the controversy other that the link to the section of the controversy article. FriendlyFred ( talk) 13:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Denying the status as peer-reviewed science to a major division of human knowledge (the behavioral and social sciences) in order to preserve the inclusion of biased opinion goes beyond anything I could have imagined occurring on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of my assertion: limiting content to what is currently in the article gives the impression that there is one journalist opposed to the logo, and the American Indian Center thinks its ok. By SYNTH, this implies it is a matter of personal opinion. Yet I am barred from saying that the social sciences prove, using many peer-reviewed studies (see notes below), that opinions are biased; images of Native Americans in sports promote harmful stereotypes. Better to say nothing, which I do not like but would accept. FriendlyFred ( talk) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless the Blackhawks are the only sports team being scrutinized, then I don't agree with adding this controversy so prominantly to this article. Better to simply add the Blackhawks to the 'controvery' article-in-question. GoodDay ( talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The confusion is there are two APA documents, the 2005 resolution and a 2010 commentary on it. I rely on the former as a clear statement of consensus. Does not mean unanimity, there are always some that think an issue needs more study. FriendlyFred ( talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you are still missing the point, FriendlyFred. The point is that on this article, viewpoints that relate specifically to the Chicago Blackhawks should be the focus. Your original proposed rewrite did not focus on the Hawks at all, and instead used it as a coatrack to promote your other article. In this case, we can take the quote from your NCAI position paper and rewrite into something like "The NCAI believes that all Native-themed nicknames, including Blackhawks, 'continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place.'" That sentence takes their position, focuses it on Chicago, and quotes their opinion as they present it. But that is only one sentence reflecting one aspect of this. It total, I don't think this warrants more than two paragraphs on the entire topic for this specific article. The (apparently) current position from the AIC that presently exists in the article would represent a positive view from a Native organization. Though if the consensus of Native groups is that the logo is bad, then we should state and cite that, allowing for the AIC comment to be viewed as dissenting opinion. But that is just one part of this. What I would also like to see is a statement on the common public opinion of the logo and nickname - because yes, opinions beyond those of Native groups merit inclusion - and any specific statement from the team. Those are also useful for a complete picture of how Chicago fits into the controversy. Once we have those elements, we can craft a passage that summarizes Chicago's place in this. Reso lute 16:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should say they won there fifth and sixth stanley cups Godzillacraft ( talk) 03:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=388634When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change owner name to Pekka Rinne McEllis82 ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete the quoted text below from the introduction: "are a group of impostors who supposedly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italian stallion ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=115437{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=376535{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=361354When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Random made a revert here, asking if it was necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chicago_Blackhawks&diff=1052209066&oldid=1052206330
The answer is, nothing on Wikipedia is "necessary." Not one article. Not one sentence.
But this is certainly appropriate. First, it improves the writing. Second, it provides context - which, otherwise, leaves the WP article subject to a potentially misleading reading.
And of course this addition is from an RS. And is so slight as not to be burdensome. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:48D2:B86D:BDE:6DF7 ( talk) 00:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not opposed to adding this information to the article. However, I should add that most of information is already stated in 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season#Sexual abuse scandal - which has its own stand-alone section. The team history sections of the article should contain a briefer summary of the allegations, investigation, and impact. As it stands now, the 2021 section goes into too many details about what happened to Quenneville and Cheveldayoff who are no longer with the team. In contract, almost every other section has a paragraph or two dedicated for search season. I'm again not against the content but pointing out we have information in three articles now about the same incident with very similar content. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chicago Blackhawks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Nicolettebruns.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the sexual assault scandal and subsequent investigation allegedly involving then video coach Brad Aldrich against a player on the 2009-10 Stanley Cup-winning team be discussed in this article? It's huge news. - Prisoned Muffin
Would it be worth mentioning the rivalry that exists between this team and the Vancouver Canucks on this page? Or it would warrant its own page? If anything that rivalry is bigger than the ones vs. St. Louis and Detroit today.-- Xiaoshan Math ( talk) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph under "The Original Six era" historical heading tends to blame the Detroit Red Wings organization--and the Norris family ownership of Chicago Stadium--for the Black Hawks' competitive ineffectiveness. The following is written without footnoted sources:
"Owner and founder Frederic McLaughlin died in 1944. His estate sold the team to a syndicate headed by longtime team president Bill Tobin. However, Tobin was only a puppet for James E. Norris, who now owned the rival Red Wings. Norris had also been the Black Hawks' landlord since his 1936 purchase of Chicago Stadium. For the next eight years, the Norris-Tobin ownership, as a rule, paid almost no attention to the Black Hawks. Nearly every trade made between Detroit and Chicago ended up being Red Wing heists. As a result, for the next several years, Chicago was the model of futility in the NHL. Between 1945 and 1958, they only made the playoffs twice."
What are needed here are footnoted sources of documents, quotes, and other written proof to: 1) Establish that Bill Tobin, as the operative owner of the Chicago Black Hawks, was indeed an agreed provider of lopsided player transactions to the J. E. Norris ownership in Detroit; 2) demonstrate that the Black Hawks faced the threat of eviction from Chicago Stadium if the team didn't service the Red Wings organization with such sweetheart player trades, and; 3) provide transaction information of such player moves, to provide documentation of the so-called "heists". Without these sources, I raise the assertion that the quoted above context is mostly conjecture and heresay; and I would greatly welcome documented support for the asserted content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.232.143 ( talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think what this article says differs from one location to the next, for example the infobox shows no alternate jerseys, whereas the jerseys section refers to the old black alternates that haven't been used in awhile. Beluga boy cup of tea? 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is my first attempt at a Talk Page ourside my own, so I hope I do this right.
The Blackhawks page has a section about the National Anthem because it is noteworthy that the Blackhawks fans Tradition is differently than "normal" Tradition in America as defined by the US Flag Code. Since this section is talking about the US Flag Code, it would be an improvement to add a link to WikiPedia's page on the subject.
I think many readers probably don't know what the US Flag Code is, and a link is a clear improvement.
Also, without identifying the contrast between the Blackhawks Tradition and American Tradition, it is pointless to even have that section.
The link that should be added is this one: [ [3]]
Maybe some text like this would be appropriate? Please provide me with how you feel it should be worded. I don't want it to sounds like any POV, such as making a judgement about the differences, which some people obviously have but is not appropriate here.
Thanks!
Change this: "It is a tradition for Blackhawks fans to applaud and cheer loudly during the singing of the national anthem. This tradition originated during a 1985 Campbell Conference playoff game at Chicago Stadium versus the Edmonton Oilers.[46] Jim Cornelison currently sings the national anthem for all home games."
To this? "In deviation with the US Flag Code, it is a tradition for Blackhawks fans to applaud and cheer loudly during the singing of the national anthem. This tradition originated during a 1985 Campbell Conference playoff game at Chicago Stadium versus the Edmonton Oilers.[46] Jim Cornelison currently sings the national anthem for all home games." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdruid ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Mattdruid (
talk) 15:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. First of all, I'm a big Blackhawks fan and have been to many games, so I know this topic very well. The way that the Blackhawks fan's deviate from the US Flag Code is radically different then any other deviation you see at other sports teams in Chicago or elsewhere. The reason the US Flag Code's National Anthem topic is even noted currently on Wikipedia is a testament to how different it is. The US Flag Code defines the behavior expected while singing the National Anthem. So at very least, we should add a reference to the US Flag Code Wikipedia page. Mattdruid ( talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried to do some digging but couldnt find enough answers, but if others could help out that would be great. I think the blackhawks are the only professional team to win a championship and visit the white house twice while the current president in office is from that teams home town. If we could look into this and add this fact at the end of the 2013 Stanley Cup section.
5-25-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefoot768 ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone needs to change the wording of "Post lockout era" to Salary cap Era. That is the difference post 2005. The NHL has had two lockouts since 2004 and for clarity it would read better and make more sense for it to say salary cap era. The NHL will continue to have lockouts. True hockey fans will read this wording of post lockout era has humorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerCarlson ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-19/news/ct-met-indian-mascots-20130619_1_american-indians-black-hawk-mascots Maybe parts of the article could be used here? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
and, I asked why those people's opinions should be here. Do they represent a large number of people? Are they themselves notable? Dbrodbeck ( talk) 20:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not edit warring! No one has responded to this talk page for a while and I thought it was safe to make a new edit. But you, Dbrodbeck, are reverting my edits with little justification! Am I not allowed to change anything on wikipedia, even if I have explained in depth the reasons for my edit? 206.221.158.70 ( talk) 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since there is contention, here is the content that I propose adding to this, and the other sports team articles:
The use of Native American names, images and symbols is often discussed in terms of offensiveness of particular instances, which reduces it to feelings and opinions of individuals, and prevents full understanding of the history and context of these practices and why they should be eliminated. [4] Social science research says that sports mascots and images, rather than being mere entertainment, are important symbols with deeper psychological and social effects. [5] The accumulation of objective research on the harm done has led many professional organizations representing civil rights, educational, athletic, and scientific experts to adopt resolutions or policies that state that any use of Native American names and/or symbols by non-native sports teams is a form of ethnic stereotyping that promotes misunderstanding and prejudice which contributes to other problems faced by Native Americans. [6] [7]
The first objection I anticipate is that this is "off-topic" because the Blackhawks are not mentioned specifically. However, this is the point; a scholarly, encyclopedic, and neutral point of view often requires such contextualizing in order to avoid trivializing a topic. FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not presenting my likes or dislikes, or anyone else's. There is peer-reviewed science that supports the NCAI and Susan Harjo, and non that is pro-mascot. In a WP article, this should end any debate. There have been POV discussions on the controversy articles already, and none have been sustained. FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) So, if the consensus is that this article is only about the team, then there should be no mention of the controversy other that the link to the section of the controversy article. FriendlyFred ( talk) 13:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Denying the status as peer-reviewed science to a major division of human knowledge (the behavioral and social sciences) in order to preserve the inclusion of biased opinion goes beyond anything I could have imagined occurring on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of my assertion: limiting content to what is currently in the article gives the impression that there is one journalist opposed to the logo, and the American Indian Center thinks its ok. By SYNTH, this implies it is a matter of personal opinion. Yet I am barred from saying that the social sciences prove, using many peer-reviewed studies (see notes below), that opinions are biased; images of Native Americans in sports promote harmful stereotypes. Better to say nothing, which I do not like but would accept. FriendlyFred ( talk) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless the Blackhawks are the only sports team being scrutinized, then I don't agree with adding this controversy so prominantly to this article. Better to simply add the Blackhawks to the 'controvery' article-in-question. GoodDay ( talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The confusion is there are two APA documents, the 2005 resolution and a 2010 commentary on it. I rely on the former as a clear statement of consensus. Does not mean unanimity, there are always some that think an issue needs more study. FriendlyFred ( talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you are still missing the point, FriendlyFred. The point is that on this article, viewpoints that relate specifically to the Chicago Blackhawks should be the focus. Your original proposed rewrite did not focus on the Hawks at all, and instead used it as a coatrack to promote your other article. In this case, we can take the quote from your NCAI position paper and rewrite into something like "The NCAI believes that all Native-themed nicknames, including Blackhawks, 'continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place.'" That sentence takes their position, focuses it on Chicago, and quotes their opinion as they present it. But that is only one sentence reflecting one aspect of this. It total, I don't think this warrants more than two paragraphs on the entire topic for this specific article. The (apparently) current position from the AIC that presently exists in the article would represent a positive view from a Native organization. Though if the consensus of Native groups is that the logo is bad, then we should state and cite that, allowing for the AIC comment to be viewed as dissenting opinion. But that is just one part of this. What I would also like to see is a statement on the common public opinion of the logo and nickname - because yes, opinions beyond those of Native groups merit inclusion - and any specific statement from the team. Those are also useful for a complete picture of how Chicago fits into the controversy. Once we have those elements, we can craft a passage that summarizes Chicago's place in this. Reso lute 16:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should say they won there fifth and sixth stanley cups Godzillacraft ( talk) 03:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=388634When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change owner name to Pekka Rinne McEllis82 ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete the quoted text below from the introduction: "are a group of impostors who supposedly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italian stallion ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=115437{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=376535{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=361354When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Random made a revert here, asking if it was necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chicago_Blackhawks&diff=1052209066&oldid=1052206330
The answer is, nothing on Wikipedia is "necessary." Not one article. Not one sentence.
But this is certainly appropriate. First, it improves the writing. Second, it provides context - which, otherwise, leaves the WP article subject to a potentially misleading reading.
And of course this addition is from an RS. And is so slight as not to be burdensome. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:48D2:B86D:BDE:6DF7 ( talk) 00:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not opposed to adding this information to the article. However, I should add that most of information is already stated in 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season#Sexual abuse scandal - which has its own stand-alone section. The team history sections of the article should contain a briefer summary of the allegations, investigation, and impact. As it stands now, the 2021 section goes into too many details about what happened to Quenneville and Cheveldayoff who are no longer with the team. In contract, almost every other section has a paragraph or two dedicated for search season. I'm again not against the content but pointing out we have information in three articles now about the same incident with very similar content. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)