This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
An incident where Eastern Michigan U. students demonstrated in 2015 that there remains an attachment to a mascot removed in 1991 is very relevant to the topic of this article, which is the public controversy regarding mascots. If this is not worthy of inclusion, then the topic is not worthy of being part of WP, and should be deleted. FriendlyFred ( talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have restored material that was taken from an APA document that is a justification of that organization's 2005 Resolution on native mascots, and an article by two Native American scholars entitled "Stereotypes in sports, chaos in federal policy". I cannot imagine how a paragraph providing this historical context can be called "off-topic" unless the criteria is that the word mascot must appear in any sentence used. FriendlyFred ( talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The insistence upon a personal interpretation of what is trivial/off-topic becomes a POV unless supported. I have spent a great deal of time researching this topic and adding cited material to the article. I would welcome thoughtful collaboration, but am not willing to have anything deleted without discussion leading to a consensus. FriendlyFred ( talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The items that Sandcherry insists upon deleting or gutting:
FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I requested an independent review of this article by two neutral and experienced editors. It is hoped their review will be the basis for improvements to the article. Sandcherry ( talk) 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I edit this article and two others with related content, I am making an effort to simplify things for me and the readers by placing detailed content in the appropriate place and replacing details with wikilinks.
For example:
The recent activity here has drawn me back after some time mainly editing another related article, and reading books on entirely different subjects. I also agree that this article needs a lot of work, but for entirely different reasons.
After almost three years of research and writing it is obvious to me that there is no controversy from a neural point of view, which means that this article is an example of WP:False balance. The opinions of sports fans, team owners and a tiny handful of (conservative) journalists, all sourced from newspapers, are placed upon equal footing with facts presented by dozens of PhDs published in peer-reviewed journals. Add to this the resolutions passed by the American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, and American Anthropology Association; it should be clear to anyone that there is as close to a unanimous scholarly consensus as any topic in the social sciences is likely to receive.
That consensus is that native mascots and the behaviors that surround them are an expression of harmful biases (prejudice) that perpetuate the stereotypical thinking upon which those biases are based. While the led section makes the statement that the academic point of view is in opposition to Native American mascots, the very existence of a "support" section is to me problematical in the same way that any "science denial" section would be in a scientific article. It implies that there is a debate between equally valid positions, which is not the case.
The alternative is to write an entirely new article using only unbiased references, an option I have considered. FriendlyFred ( talk) 04:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments about the general public's opinions of the use of Native American mascots are directly related to this article. Comments about the opinion-based nature of "soft" sciences are not relevant, and are outside of this topic. Looking at FriendlyFred's comments about newspapers, at no point do I see anything about newspapers being unusable. I interpret the comments to be saying, correctly, that the personal opinions of people with a financial interest and non-expert fans should not be presented as being equal to expert opinions. Expressing a preference for journals over newspapers is a far, far cry from "newspapers are bad". Again, what sources, newspaper or otherwise, would you like to see being used? Can you give a specific example? Grayfell ( talk) 04:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
A large number of "fact" tags were placed which include
Given the lack of discussion before making these edits, and their appearing to be an example of drive-by tagging, I am in the process of removing most of them. FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
A reorganization of the Redskins section under secondary schools in the US, adding subsections and removing the list of retired Redskins, which is also maintained in a separate list article. FriendlyFred ( talk) 05:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A GA review of the Washington Redskins name controversy has resulted in a ~67% reduction of that article by aggressively applying Wikipedia:Summary style, condensing and splitting as needed. This article's size was mentioned in passing, and I would like to apply the same process if it improves readability and the likelihood that the average visitor would actually read the content rather than think WP:TL;DR. Splitting topics also makes it more likely that editors will not be intimidated by the complexity and work on maintaining and improving articles. I only wish someone had mentioned this before, rather than having the articles collect everything. I am an old-fashioned academic writer, so complexity and lots of citations are what I am accustomed to.
I have already split out Other Redskins sports teams which is an obvious sub-topic referenced here and in the other Redskins-related articles.
What is worthy of its own article? Is the entire section on Trends notable, or does it become a catalog of random public opinion with no NPOV? I have created a list article List of Washington Redskins name change advocates, would this be similar? FriendlyFred ( talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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, 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This article (or at least its introduction) is hugely biased towards the campaigners for renaming. 86.139.250.85 ( talk) 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the related article Washington Redskins name controversy passed a GA review, I have wanted to improve this article. Its a bit long but I think it is worthy, and would like to stimulate interest in improvement. I began by removing detailed references to individual schools changing their mascots. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 06:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive2001.asp?ptid=&story={B523D699-F44C-4D4E-818E-1BC26CC53821}&mid=3365When 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) 05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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.corsicanadailysun.com/sports/article_b76efcf1-9d5b-5a45-92f4-d4e4e17cbbf5.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.chieftain.com/news/3562480-120/bill-schools-mascots-american{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://stanfordreview.org/old_archives/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_4/Features/features2.shtmlWhen 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) 05:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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) 13:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
ReviewGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Yes this is a very long article. Was a good read though and I was kept my interest through most of it (although the trends section became a nit of a slog).
Comments
Title
Lead
History
Viewpoints
Trends
Other
Reference checkTo come. AIRcorn (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Editor commentsThe above is welcome editorial assistance that I had hoped for. I have been contributing to this article for ten years, and have been immersed in the extensive literature on the topic, and have made assumptions about the general knowledge the typical reader might have. It has not been seen with fresh eyes for some time, and perhaps never with this thoroughness. I will address the points above over the next few days.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 13:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Other editsI realized that the lead contained content on cultural appropriation that was not addressed in the article, so I moved that paragraph to the appropriate section.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Final comments
AIRcorn (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Native American mascot controversy. 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) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed the content here regarding the " Washington Redhawks", which had no subsequent effect, and replaced it with a new statement by the NAACP.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 13:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [3] 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.” [4] 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, 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)
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)
Despite a history of using Native American mascots, arrows, and even the Tomahawk Chop, the team was actually named for "Chief" Bartle. [5] [6] What the Chiefs name less controversial is the fact that Bartle was also a civil rights champion who oversaw desegregation in Kansas City. [7] The Native American stuff was clearly added over time. Mancalledsting ( talk) 00:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
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
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
An incident where Eastern Michigan U. students demonstrated in 2015 that there remains an attachment to a mascot removed in 1991 is very relevant to the topic of this article, which is the public controversy regarding mascots. If this is not worthy of inclusion, then the topic is not worthy of being part of WP, and should be deleted. FriendlyFred ( talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have restored material that was taken from an APA document that is a justification of that organization's 2005 Resolution on native mascots, and an article by two Native American scholars entitled "Stereotypes in sports, chaos in federal policy". I cannot imagine how a paragraph providing this historical context can be called "off-topic" unless the criteria is that the word mascot must appear in any sentence used. FriendlyFred ( talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The insistence upon a personal interpretation of what is trivial/off-topic becomes a POV unless supported. I have spent a great deal of time researching this topic and adding cited material to the article. I would welcome thoughtful collaboration, but am not willing to have anything deleted without discussion leading to a consensus. FriendlyFred ( talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The items that Sandcherry insists upon deleting or gutting:
FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I requested an independent review of this article by two neutral and experienced editors. It is hoped their review will be the basis for improvements to the article. Sandcherry ( talk) 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I edit this article and two others with related content, I am making an effort to simplify things for me and the readers by placing detailed content in the appropriate place and replacing details with wikilinks.
For example:
The recent activity here has drawn me back after some time mainly editing another related article, and reading books on entirely different subjects. I also agree that this article needs a lot of work, but for entirely different reasons.
After almost three years of research and writing it is obvious to me that there is no controversy from a neural point of view, which means that this article is an example of WP:False balance. The opinions of sports fans, team owners and a tiny handful of (conservative) journalists, all sourced from newspapers, are placed upon equal footing with facts presented by dozens of PhDs published in peer-reviewed journals. Add to this the resolutions passed by the American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, and American Anthropology Association; it should be clear to anyone that there is as close to a unanimous scholarly consensus as any topic in the social sciences is likely to receive.
That consensus is that native mascots and the behaviors that surround them are an expression of harmful biases (prejudice) that perpetuate the stereotypical thinking upon which those biases are based. While the led section makes the statement that the academic point of view is in opposition to Native American mascots, the very existence of a "support" section is to me problematical in the same way that any "science denial" section would be in a scientific article. It implies that there is a debate between equally valid positions, which is not the case.
The alternative is to write an entirely new article using only unbiased references, an option I have considered. FriendlyFred ( talk) 04:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments about the general public's opinions of the use of Native American mascots are directly related to this article. Comments about the opinion-based nature of "soft" sciences are not relevant, and are outside of this topic. Looking at FriendlyFred's comments about newspapers, at no point do I see anything about newspapers being unusable. I interpret the comments to be saying, correctly, that the personal opinions of people with a financial interest and non-expert fans should not be presented as being equal to expert opinions. Expressing a preference for journals over newspapers is a far, far cry from "newspapers are bad". Again, what sources, newspaper or otherwise, would you like to see being used? Can you give a specific example? Grayfell ( talk) 04:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
A large number of "fact" tags were placed which include
Given the lack of discussion before making these edits, and their appearing to be an example of drive-by tagging, I am in the process of removing most of them. FriendlyFred ( talk) 02:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
A reorganization of the Redskins section under secondary schools in the US, adding subsections and removing the list of retired Redskins, which is also maintained in a separate list article. FriendlyFred ( talk) 05:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A GA review of the Washington Redskins name controversy has resulted in a ~67% reduction of that article by aggressively applying Wikipedia:Summary style, condensing and splitting as needed. This article's size was mentioned in passing, and I would like to apply the same process if it improves readability and the likelihood that the average visitor would actually read the content rather than think WP:TL;DR. Splitting topics also makes it more likely that editors will not be intimidated by the complexity and work on maintaining and improving articles. I only wish someone had mentioned this before, rather than having the articles collect everything. I am an old-fashioned academic writer, so complexity and lots of citations are what I am accustomed to.
I have already split out Other Redskins sports teams which is an obvious sub-topic referenced here and in the other Redskins-related articles.
What is worthy of its own article? Is the entire section on Trends notable, or does it become a catalog of random public opinion with no NPOV? I have created a list article List of Washington Redskins name change advocates, would this be similar? FriendlyFred ( talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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, 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This article (or at least its introduction) is hugely biased towards the campaigners for renaming. 86.139.250.85 ( talk) 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the related article Washington Redskins name controversy passed a GA review, I have wanted to improve this article. Its a bit long but I think it is worthy, and would like to stimulate interest in improvement. I began by removing detailed references to individual schools changing their mascots. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 06:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive2001.asp?ptid=&story={B523D699-F44C-4D4E-818E-1BC26CC53821}&mid=3365When 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) 05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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.corsicanadailysun.com/sports/article_b76efcf1-9d5b-5a45-92f4-d4e4e17cbbf5.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.chieftain.com/news/3562480-120/bill-schools-mascots-american{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://stanfordreview.org/old_archives/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_4/Features/features2.shtmlWhen 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) 05:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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) 13:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
ReviewGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Yes this is a very long article. Was a good read though and I was kept my interest through most of it (although the trends section became a nit of a slog).
Comments
Title
Lead
History
Viewpoints
Trends
Other
Reference checkTo come. AIRcorn (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Editor commentsThe above is welcome editorial assistance that I had hoped for. I have been contributing to this article for ten years, and have been immersed in the extensive literature on the topic, and have made assumptions about the general knowledge the typical reader might have. It has not been seen with fresh eyes for some time, and perhaps never with this thoroughness. I will address the points above over the next few days.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 13:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Other editsI realized that the lead contained content on cultural appropriation that was not addressed in the article, so I moved that paragraph to the appropriate section.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Final comments
AIRcorn (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Native American mascot controversy. 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) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed the content here regarding the " Washington Redhawks", which had no subsequent effect, and replaced it with a new statement by the NAACP.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 13:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [3] 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.” [4] 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, 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)
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)
Despite a history of using Native American mascots, arrows, and even the Tomahawk Chop, the team was actually named for "Chief" Bartle. [5] [6] What the Chiefs name less controversial is the fact that Bartle was also a civil rights champion who oversaw desegregation in Kansas City. [7] The Native American stuff was clearly added over time. Mancalledsting ( talk) 00:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
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
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)