Talk:Chief Illiniwek/Archive 2

No Consensus on Symbol vs Mascot

There is a strong lack of consensus on the word usage in the opening paragraph. I read through the previous discussion that occurred mostly back in February/March of 07, and I see strong debate that was never settled and certainly no consensus was reached. There is at least one point that is being ignored, and that is the official stance of the University and the state legislature in calling the Chief a symbol, regardless if they are referring to the performer or to a pictorial illustration.
For example, when we refer to Elizabeth_II we state first and foremost that she is the Queen regnant and later we go on to describe her common title(s), or how she is commonly referred to by the media/public as the "Queen of England." So we give credit to self-description in this case. Why can we not do the same for Chief Illiniwek?
I also take issue with Rhetor230's reversions, though one I take less issue with one than the other. First, "Chief Illiniwek was the mascot and official symbol..." this wording does elude to the controversy, though it should probably be switched around to state "official symbol and mascot" if the term mascot is to be kept at all. Second, I take great issue with the line "Still, despite the local mascot/symbol controversy, standard usage would seem to prefer the term "mascot." This is drawing a conclusion which we do not do here, especially when something is controversial. It is against NPOV. I have reverted this second one, the first one I will let stand until we can get this debate going again.
--Mattarata 04:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

An anthropomorphic figure or fictionalized individual that performs at sporting events, representing a team and university, is a mascot. The term "symbol" was only adopted by the university in order to skirt objections to its use by Native Americans. Badagnani 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, the issue is only a controversy because of local, highly idiosyncratic usage meant to obfuscate and attempt to justify the claim that the chief is somehow more honorable than other mascots/symbols. Check any dictionary definition and see if it doesn't apply to the chief -- many definitions of 'mascot' include 'symbol' in their description of the term. Excluding the normative term is in fact against NPOV. Rhetor230 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you addressed my point about self description or the official description of the school and the state. What about the stance of the more than 500k alumni? How many people have describe something that is their own, it their own way, before it can be accepted? I concede that the term may be idiosyncratic, but it is certainly not intended to obfuscate anything. I urge you to find an example of the Chief ever being called a mascot in an official capacity by the university or the state. The term mascot may apply, but as a secondary description to the preferred term. I do not wish to exclude the term mascot, simply to place it as secondary to the preferred term.
Additionally I present other arguments.
*Chicago El is called so by the local population. However outside of Chicago, most people would call the system a "rapid transit system" and later in the article it is in fact described as such. In the opening paragraph clear preference is given to the local name even though consensus among the wider world community is that it is a rapid transit system.
*What about Chief Osceola from FSU? In that article he is described as a symbol, there is zero mention of mascot. I would argue that the performance of Chief Osceola is identical in spirit to the performance of Chief Illiniwek. Both are meant to pay reverence to American Indian Culture. In fact Chief Illiniwek existed for 36 years prior to Chief Osceola.
--Mattarata 14:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Chief Osceola has not been involved in a long-standing conflict to the scale of Chief Illiniwek, so that's not exactly a good comparison. Justinm1978 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will grant that the current logo might be reasonably referred to as a symbol. Before that graphic came into being in the early 80s however, the visual representations of the chief enthusiastically lived up to the legacy of the crudest stereotypes American culture has produced to depict Indians. As referenced above, even after the adoption of the current logo, the university granted a commercial license to produce toilet paper adorned with the chief symbol. You cannot seriously contend that this was meant to display of honor and respect for Indians.

I do want to revisit my position on another set of terms. The preference for the term symbol, either to the exclusion of or over, the term mascot might actually be better described as partisan rather than local. I’m glad you concede that this preference is idiosyncratic but I must reiterate that it most certainly is meant to obfuscate. The insistence that it is a symbol, either rather than or more than, a mascot is a transparent attempt to elide the blatantly racist nature of past representations of the chief as well as the fact that the supposed recipients of the great honor now allegedly intended by the dancing student and current logo do not in fact feel honored by the all the effort.

It is hardly unreasonable to assert that standard, nonpartisan usage would seem to prefer the term “mascot” over “symbol.” Rhetor230 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Justinm1978: The only reason Chief Osceola has never been involved in a long standing conflict is because the Seminole tribe is still in existence. You really think the tribe resolved to allow the school to continue to use the symbol without financial and other considerations in return? You don't think the University of Illinois would have made the same considerations if an Illiniwek tribe still existed? But regardless, the Chief Osceola article, despite the fact that it is a poor quality article, makes no mention that he is a mascot in exactly the same way Chief Illiniwek is described here.

Rhetor230: Your toilet paper comment is unsupported. This report from 2000 under section IV E. states that the University is against the use of the symbol on certain products namely toilet seats and paper. Just because a merchant uses an image of something to sell a product, does not mean that the use is sanctioned or non-accidental. Trademark licensing is a complex affair and is blown out of proportion in this argument. I am sure that rights were not granted specifically for toilet paper, rather they were grated for "promotional products and merchandise" without even considering that it might be used controversially.

The logo is not even the main point of contention here, rather the human representation of the Chief as a symbol of the university that existed well before the early 80's logo. The logo is a somewhat secondary matter.

I do not wish to exclude the term mascot. I do wish to present both terms with equality and neutrality which is the spirit of Wikipedia. I feel this article is not neutral, specifically in the third sentence. The third sentence of the article immediately chooses one term over the other, using "mascot" instead of "symbol." In this instance we should not choose, just write "The Chief performed during halftime..." As for the first sentence, in listing the terms consecutively, you have made a choice as to what order they should be listed. There is no strong literary precedent for placing "mascot before "official symbol" in the first sentence. You say placing "symbol" in the initial position obfuscates, and downplays any racial undertones. I say you are arguing for the opposite side rather than for neutrality. I am simply saying that since there is strong idiosyncratic preference, deference should be made to that in usage, just as it is in other articles. --Mattarata 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Florida State University mascot and symbol have indeed been involved in controversy. I am from there and witnessed this controversy first hand, and in the newspaper, from the late 1980s on. Badagnani 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why not improve that article? --Mattarata 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it need improvement? I was simply answering a user who claimed the FSU mascot had "no controversy" surrounding it. Badagnani 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chief Osceola article certainly does need improvement according to Rhetor230's arguments. People religiously defend this article while allowing that article to retain the term "Symbol" that I am insisting be preferred here. --Mattarata 15:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the article. The term "mascot" does not appear at all. That is not correct, as a student dressed as a Seminole Indian does ride onto the field, and, I believe, throws a flaming spear. The fans do the "tomahawk chop" (thousands of non-Indian fans making a chopping motion with their hands, presumably imitating scalping), the "Marching Chiefs" (the university's marching band) plays a similar Hollywood-inspired "tribal" song complete with thumping drums, and the women's pep squad was formerly known as the "Lady Scalphunters" (this was just a few years ago, and is the only thing to have been changed). Badagnani 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the name "Seminoles," in the early 1990s a woman from the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida who was selling her needlepoint work at the university's Wednesday fair at the student center was told by "FSU Seminoles" team officials that she could not sell any needlepoint that said "SEMINOLES" on it, because they owned that name. Unbelievable? That's the sort of "respect" given to the actual peoples the team names/symbols/mascots are supposedly honoring. Badagnani 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like good stuff that belongs in the Chief Osceola article, properly sourced of course. I am just trying to bring balance to all articles of a similar nature. If the term symbol is allowed to remain on that article, then it should feature here as well. --Mattarata 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "symbol" is used quite a bit in this article. Badagnani 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My “toilet paper comment is unsupported”??

You’re not seriously attempting to argue that no such toilet paper exists are you? The university may have finally recently banned the use of the chief symbol on such products, but they most certainly existed for decades. The university only belatedly banned the use of the chief symbol on toilet paper due to the negative publicity in an attempt to, in a word, obfuscate. The university had to make this move because they realized the existence of products such as toilet paper adorned with the chief symbol hurt their case that they meant nothing but respect to Indians.

Your argument is self contradictory. You seem to want to absolve the university of responsibility for what products it licensed the chief symbol for but then you want to give them credit for finally banning use of the imagery on embarrassing products. You can’t have it both ways. And the university most surely did have control over what type of products were adorned with the chief symbol. Are you really trying to make the case that the university was oblivious to the chief symbol appearing on toilet paper?

And you cannot conveniently separate the logo from the dancing student when it suits your argument. The utter contempt and disrespect shown by licensing the chief symbol on toilet paper is part and parcel of the broader disrespect and lack of concern for what actual Indians think about the chief. Remember, the university and chief defenders only took up the use of the term ‘symbol’ in response to the criticism that the chief was a racist mascot.

Your pretense at neutrality is transparent. Whether you like it or not, ‘mascot’ is the standard term and most definitely does apply. In the interest of neutrality and inclusiveness, the term ‘symbol’ is included here; but it is not supportable that it should be the privileged term. The debate over whether to use ‘mascot’ or ‘symbol’ is not a neutral, non political debate about honoring subject preferences; it is about the university deliberately trying to provide cover for its argument that the chief is separate from and above other mascots. You assert that I am arguing for a particular side here – don’t you realize that, by the same token, there is nothing neutral about your insistence on facilitating the university’s disingenuousness.Rhetor230 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Toilet paper is only one example. Opposing teams hanging Indians in effigy are a longstanding "tradition" as well, seen not only at Illini games, but games featuring Florida State as well as other teams with American Indian mascots. Badagnani 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the toilet paper existed. But if you think the University knowingly, deliberately, or had any other kind of willful intent to specifically license their trademark for use on toilet paper, then please provide your source. Otherwise it was a mistake that, when brought to light, was dealt with. But besides...the toilet paper issue is such a small, unsupported piece of this debate, it is not even included in the current version of the article. Also, you brought the toilet paper argument into the debate as a reason why this article should prefer the term mascot, and if you are going to do that, you need sources.

Opposing teams hanging Indians in effigy does not mean that the symbols should not exist, rather it speaks towards the mentality of those doing the hanging. Again, this argument has nothing to do with preference of terms.

Please provide sources showing the university ever referring to the Chief as a mascot. If you can appropriately source that information, than you have proved your case and you can write into the article exactly what you are arguing. Otherwise I have a right to demand neutral language. --Mattarata 15:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New Section, continues debate

Badagnani: Yes the term 'symbol' is used in this article, but in certain places, preference is given to the term 'mascot' in what I would deem a biased manner. My point is that no attention is paid to the Chief Osceola article, while this article is rigorously defended. If you are going to champion against racism, you need to do it on all fronts otherwise I suspect alternate motives. --Mattarata 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So we’re continuing the debate in a new section. Okay, fine.

You acknowledge that “of course” toilet paper exists but then you say I have to provide a source to reference it in this discussion page. Actually, no I don’t. The toilet paper existed for decades before the university was finally embarrassed enough by it to ban it. CU is a small town and it was a contentious issue before they banned it – of course they knew about it. The toilet paper is a side issue but it speaks to the overall disrespect the university and chief supporters show towards actual Indians. Your continual refusal to acknowledge this is why we’re still discussing it.

I don’t want to speak for Badagnani but the point might have been that the dehumanization of Indians encouraged by mascots such as the chief encourage the kind of sick behavior he or she refers to.

And by the way, it’s not for you to dictate what articles others have to watch.

Last, you don’t respond to my point above that the changes you want to make are most definitely not neutral. I don’t have to show that the university refers to the chief as a mascot. The university, or any other chief supporter, does not have final say. Standard English usage prefers ‘mascot.’ Be careful about charging that others are biased; your insistence on toeing the chief defenders’ line does not exactly speak well to your neutrality on the subject. Rhetor230 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The counter-argument is that the Chief predates the common usage of mascot. The fact that other schools have improperly interpreted the concept of a school symbol and their usages are mascots does not make the Chief a mascot. -- Upholder 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Upholder is right, and I neglected to raise this issue. However this argument is presented in the article and I am fine with that as is.

Who cares about the toilet paper?!?! I suppose if there was a campus toilet paper store that only sold Chief toilet paper and nothing else, then it might be a big deal...but that did not exist. The logo was printed on toilet paper, just as hundreds of other logos are similarly printed. The anti-Chief seized upon this as a major argument and you are continuing the pointless debate. My concerns are about word usage in this article and not about where a symbol like this might end up being printed.

Right, you don't have to watch Chief Osceola, but your refusal acknowledge that "symbol" is the only descriptive term on that article and here it must compete with "mascot" is ridiculous. If you care about this issue that much, make some edits there as well.

You say "The university, or any other chief supporter, does not have final say" - but they all DO have a say. You certainly do not have the final say either.

To bring the argument back to my specific objections:

I can accept the first sentence as is. Both terms are included, the wording is a bit ambiguous as to what it is really referring to, fine.

I still object to the final sentence in the first paragraph. It says "The mascot performed ..." I would like to eliminate the wording controversy entirely by changing it to say "The Chief performed..." What is your specific objection to this?

I also object to the final sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the background section. "Still, despite the local mascot/symbol controversy, standard usage would seem to prefer the term "mascot." You say "Standard English usage prefers ‘mascot.’" You also have said that the term symbol is idiosyncratic/local custom, even though it has been proven to exist prior to the existance of mascots. Why not re-write this sentence to say: "Despite the local mascot/symbol controversy, standard English usage and current worldwide opinion prefer the term "mascot." I am more comfortable with this, than using the words "still" and "seem" as they appear to me to be weasel words. What is your objection to this? --Mattarata 22:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattarata:

Once again, as I’ve pointed out before, the toilet paper adorned with the chief symbol is relevant because it disproves your claim that the university has always shown respect to Indians through the chief. What don’t you understand about this?

My “refusal [to] acknowledge that ‘symbol’ is the only descriptive term on that article and here it must compete with "mascot" is ridiculous. If you care about this issue that much, make some edits there as well.”

When have I “refused” to acknowledge anything about that article?

And, as I said before, it’s not for you to tell anyone else what articles to edit.

Yes, we all have a say. I was simply pointing out that defenders of the chief, such as you appear to be, don’t have the final say. I never claimed final say for myself.

“…the wording is a bit ambiguous as to what it is really referring to…” – how is it ambiguous? What else could be the subject of the first sentence?

Again, words are not neutral. Despite reservations about bias, I accepted your earlier revision from “danced” to “performed” but I do not support your new proposed revision. Changing the wording from “The mascot…” to “The Chief…” is definitely not neutral and certainly won’t “eliminate the controversy.” Standard and neutral usage prefers it as is.

I don’t know how serious you are about your final proposed revision, but I certainly won’t object if you delete “still” and “seem to” from and add “English” to the last sentence of Background, paragraph 2:

“Despite the local mascot/symbol controversy, standard English usage prefers the term "’mascot.’"

Rhetor230 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the sentence be replaced with: "Supporters of the Chief refer to him as a symbol while opponents describe him as a mascot." Which is 100% accurate and eliminates the implied bias that one is more correct than the other. I have edited that paragraph to use wording along the lines I proposed at the head of the paragraph and eliminated the last sentence as redundant. -- Upholder 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an oversimplification, as it's clear that it is used as both mascot and symbol. Badagnani 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your reverts, you labeled the entire change as 'incorrect information' when it was no more than a copy edit and the addition of a web cite template to an existing reference. I have put the template back. What exactly is your object to saying that one side of the debate uses one set of terms and the other uses a second set? -- Upholder 00:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you add this, it needs to be contextualized as far as when, and why this use of terminology began to be used by each side. The modern anti-Chief movement began when the actual dancing Chief was witnessed, not a symbol on letterhead. Finally, discussing only supporters and opponents leaves out the NPOV, dispassionate viewers from outside, who see that the Chief has been used as both mascot and symbol.

Regarding the final sentence, I agree that it reads as POV, so if the same thing could be stated in the preceding text explaining the various uses/incarnations of Chief Illiniwek, it would be better. The sentence is correct, as mascot is defined by our own article on this subject. Badagnani 00:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the sources that prove no sports team had a mascot before 1926, when the Chief Illiniwek halftime dance was first performed? I don't see that stated in the Mascot article. Badagnani 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rhetor230: Thank you for your consensus on the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the Background section.

Apparently, failure by the University to quickly pull the toilet paper from the shelves indicates that they were not against its existence. I say bureaucracy and trademark licensing are complicated matters.

The Chief Osceola article is support for the usage of the word symbol in this article. What are your thoughts on that?

How is addressing a figure by their official name is not acceptable? Specifically when their title or role may be controversial. I would also accept changing "The mascot performed.." to "He performed..." Even in the 2nd sentence of the paragraph we have already settled on the official name instead of "The mascot", "The symbol" or "he." --Mattarata 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have changed this several times myself. Using "The mascot" is only a POV argument in favor of the anti-chief side. By eliminating loose nouns and staying as specific as possible, the statement becomes NPOV. I've even avoided "The Chief" because I know a war would start over capitalization. "Chief Illiniwek" is used as a proper noun that can describe only one thing... the mascot/symbol/performer (whatever you want to call it in your own POV) that is on the field. This wording leaves that interpretation up to the reader. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The symbol in use does not predate 1980.. so I do not see how it has been used for decades on toilet paper.. and source please on the toilet paper?? I have seen on cups a progression of the symbol, of which I have actually held in my hand, of the symbol, from degrading to the doing of approaching the Cleveland Indians, to the symbol we have. The progression started before the controversy truly began (Charlene Teters as the true beginning) Tigerhawk47 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The mascot is the dancing student and the symbol is the image on letterhead and clothing. The usage is consistent across all similar Wikipedia articles and the extremely idiosyncratic usage of language--specifically that the student dressed in Native American garb dancing/performing at sporting events was not a mascot (prompted originally in an attempt to keep the mascot, despite criticism by Native Americans) would be POV. Thank you for your interest in this article. Badagnani 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Using the less specific term "the mascot" when a more specific term "Chief Illiniwek" is available, is pushing the POV that Chief Illiniwek was a mascot, a point that is clearly in contention. -- Upholder 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chief Illiniwek was a fictional character and thus could not dance. The mascot dressed as Chief Illiniwek performed that function. The symbol appeared on clothing and letterhead. The distinction is very clear. Badagnani 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied with the verbage: "the student portraying Chief Illiniwek danced..."? That satisfies your concerns about fictional characters performing actions without using term mascot, that is very emotionally loaded in this context. -- Upholder 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that wording would be accurate. However, the removal of "mascot" in other parts of the article would not be acceptable as it would completely obscure the need the university felt to distance itself from this word after the controversy arose many years ago. Badagnani 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with this as well, as long as the term 'mascot' remains in the preceding sentence. However, I do not accept that 'mascot' is POV. As has been demonstrated repeatedly above, it is in line with standard usage and therefor NPOV. It is the deliberate and disingenuous avoidance of this term that is POV. Rhetor230 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh Censorship.. Its wonderful is it not? Compromise is something that was done through only a third part, and of which speaks wonders for this tragic affair we have been put in. SO ask why there was no compromise to be offered from your camp.. and that is why I realize that, for all of the personal attacks we endured, and threats towards grades by professors, we actually are the winners.. In the long run. This comes from the idea that you allow freedom of your expression, but no others.. So ask yourself, why was no compromise offered, when you were comparing Our Chief to The Florida State Seminoles, and also to the Cleveland Indian Mascot.. Why do you not say in what a way that is able to speak intelligently, and have forums, how to make things more accurate and better.. That's why your philosophy, one that does not bend, will ultimately break, because it is based not on freedom, but on the ideals that your ideas, and yours alone, are the only ones that could possibly be right.. now.. how is that constitutional, or what this country was based on at all? For now at least, it is good to know that the honorable way of things, and also we must say there were next to none of those parading around in fake regalia which stated by your camp to come, but the tradition is still coming, and evolving and changing to be better still auditions are still to be held.. Sorry, you don't win, you have just made all of our generation realize one thing, and that is how dangerous it is to have those in power have their view and not allow any others, and how they can use one word, such as Jew,(added this was not in reference to the Holocaust mainly.. Jewish people have been persecuted for centuries) or Witch, heretic, to control the one's they are supposed to help, your dejure of choice I am sad to say, racist, does more harm than most could imagine, but always freedom and liberty minded thoughts find a way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.13.9 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Tigerhawk47 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are a student at UIUC, please let me know, so I can burn my degree. The stupidity required to mention the Chief debate in the same breath as Jews, is astounding. Given the history of Native Americans, having a white frat boy from the Chicago suburbs dance at sporting events doesn't really honor anything. People whose opinions actually matter have made the correct call, which was to retire the Chief. Accept it, and move on. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not meant in any way to compare it to what happened in the past with the holocaust. The point, even if uneloquently put, was referring to the supporters being painted as racists, that calling someone a name to promote your view does not promote your view, In a way.. it's doing what is stated to be the issue in the first place, massively representing people, falsely. The point being made was that words, or witch hunts do not lead to much of anything that leads to general happiness of either party and rarely mutual respect. But the issue with Chief Illiniwek is quite a bit more complicated. The Chief Tradition does not have to do with a white frat boy, but moreover a desire to learn about a culture, the Oglala Sioux in this case, by a few Eagle scouts from the late 1920's. From there.. It evolved during a scout World Jamboree, into something that is unique. It with the chance could, can, evolve to be something greater, not something to be quickly labeled and trashed, with seemingly little effort to actually reach a conclusion, a "consensus" as was stated to be reached.. If given the opportunity.. would there be a chance to actually find something in the middle ground? (whether or not it is felt it is over or not.. what could be done?)

Tigerhawk47 (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

POV Becoming an Issue

I have tried to remain neutral in editing this article as I am a pro-Chief UIUC student and I understand there are POV issues involved. I've abstained from editing in most cases, but I feel like the article is starting to shift to a very POV anti-Chief viewpoint. There are changes that have been made over the past year (since last February when editing the article became much more active) that I will agree with, such as the current status of the first sentence of the article. I believe it's current form is as neutral as it's going to get. I'm getting tired though, of every edit that somebody makes being reverted. I've seen many unnecessary reverts that move the article to anti-Chief viewpoints. For example, over the past day, I've removed the last sentence of the second paragraph in the "Background" section twice ("Despite the local mascot/symbol controversy, standard English usage prefers the term "mascot."")... This is what the whole paragraph is already about and this is just an overstatement that leans the article anti-Chief. Also, I know I've seen edits in the past to remove "the mascot" from the opening paragraph to things that are completely neutral ("Illiniwek", "the chief", etc) which have all been subsequently reverted. Anti-Chief people are just as capable of making POV edits. There are ways of wording things that can be neutral. I agree with reverting edits that make the article lean one way, but if somebody puts in neutral language, it should be kept. Don't be so quick to hit "undo". I'll now agree that the Chief can be seen as a mascot, but that doesn't mean it has to be every other word. Because there are people on both sides of the fense, we can't just take the side of "most of the editors". It needs to remain neutral. That's what Wikipedia is all about. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to standard English usage, when it's on letterhead or sweatshirts it's a "symbol." When it's an actual person dancing at a sporting event, it's a "mascot." It is very simple. Badagnani (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with the usage. It is, however, already stated at several points in the article (namely the Intoduction, other points in the "Background" section, and the "Controversy" section) that the usage is disputed, but that the function of the Chief, however it was intended, was as a mascot. However, by REstating this (emphasis entended), it is creating an anti-Chief POV and VIOLATES WP:DICT. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because the wording doesn't support a pro chief stance does not mean it is POV. Ask anyone who is not familiar with the local and highly idiosyncratic use of 'symbol,' and they will tell you that 'mascot' is the normal, standard term for the chief. That is what this sentence conveys and it is not a restatement. It could be called a conclusion, hence its position at the end of the paragraph, but it is clearly in no way a restatement. Rhetor230 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking anyone is WP:OR and not allowed on WP. If you have a reliable source then cite it. Besides the paragraph is about the viewpoint of the Board of Trustees not the common folk. The term mascot is used in the lead. Alatari (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you attempting to claim that it is not the place of 'the common folk' to have a say in wikkipedia?

Such a position is hardly in keeping with the ethic of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetor230 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have another location for this reference: Roger Ebert (March 6, 2001). "Noble spirit more than just a mascot". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved October 11, 2007.. The site it's stored at is a heavy pop-up and spammer site so my browser won't open it. The fact that's its stored on a spamming site means it will have to be pulled off WP according to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 6. Alatari (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate where exactly it is claimed that the meaning of this sentence is expressed elsewhere in the article. If it is a 'restatement,' where exactly is the original statement? Rhetor230 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Chief Illiniwek was the mascot is the first sentence. Mascot includes usage information. Your addition is extraneous and contradicts the POV of the Trustees which is what the paragraph is about. If you revert one more time while other editors strongly disagree with you, you risk a ban from the WP:3RR rule. Alatari (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You omit the rest of the opening sentence which goes on to say 'and official symbol...' You do not indicate where the sense of the sentence ('Despite the local mascot/symbol controversy, standard English usage prefers the term "mascot."') is supposedly originally stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetor230 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence itself has been pointed out by at least 2 editors as violating a couple of WP policies. It's badly worded as this isn't a dictionary and it's beyond the scope of the article to state what is common English usage. Reword it and put it in another paragraph for the second paragraph is dedicated to the POV of the Board. Compromise and consensus is what WP is about. Pushing the same disagreeable sentence down our throats isn't getting us anywhere. Alatari (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikkipedia is about consensus but at least two editors believe it belongs and, by your logic, demanding the sentence be deleted could also be construed as 'pushing' your view 'down our throats.' The sentence does not appear to be badly worded or out of place in the article. Also, the subject of the paragraph is not limited to the views of the BOT. Further, you still don't point out where the original statement of this alleged 'restatement' occurs. That was the original objection in this latest string of pro chief editing -- is that still an issue or has it been dropped? Rhetor230 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have the problem. The sentence in question is probably referring to *the dancing student*. If so, it should be made more clear that it is referring to *the dancing student*. The university and board of trustees did claim that the dancing student was a symbol, not a mascot (probably to avoid being painted with the "Indian mascot" brush, as had several other universities, and thus keep the dancing student, despite widespread criticism), while the rest of the world saw the dancing student as a sports mascot, essentially like any other. If referring to the dancing student as well as the logo (as it appeared on sweatshirts, letterhead, etc.), the sentence wouldn't seem to be accurate. Badagnani (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this: "While the logo might reasonably be referred to as a "symbol," standard usage prefers "mascot" for the dancing student."? Rhetor230 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems quite sensible. Badagnani (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, really want to speak of this. It really is a trip to look at the anti-Chief side now requesting that their thoughts be heard. I was one to hear for compromise, but with the fashion in which this current retirement was taken in, it is hard to listen to the voices in which when we requested compromise with Our Chief, to be called racists and bigots, and to have no respect for other peoples views. That is why this article is soo heavily disputed people, Pro-Chief people are quite bored with being pushed about, and having their voice be silenced by minority. As much as we do want to not allow the majority to hurt the minority, this is no oligarchy. The voices of the few should be listened to, but just because they are the few, does not mean that their voices count more than the many, that is ludicrous and inane totally. So until concessions can be made by the others side and viewpoint, it is unfair to expect the pro-Chief to continue to give in, your extremism is no longer endearing if it ever was, it is making us sick to our stomach. So when editing, please realize that people do haev other views than your own, and that they may not be lesser beings just because they disagree. Tigerhawk27 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground of any kind, and opinions similarly have no place in any Wikipedia article (though they are fine for blogs). Instead, we base our articles on reliable, verifiable sources, and aim to keep all articles having a neutral point of view. Badagnani (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit of the current new, being shoved to the end of the article, when it is a current event, seems to be a POV issue, as it ignores many issues.

Also It seems that the controversy portion has no place in the first portion, or at least not to the degree as it does haev prevalence it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.220.12 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Disputed Section

Chief Illiniwek was sometimes referred to as the University's mascot, though the university's Board of Trustees and its supporters have insisted that symbol was the appropriate label. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams. To further separate Chief Illiniwek from the mascot label, he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games (as is typical for university sports mascots) and in recent years he did not perform at road games, although, in some cases, this was because other universities would not permit the mascot to perform at their home games. Despite the local mascot/symbol controversy, standard English usage prefers the term "mascot."

Action

Rewrite to contain the spirit of the disputed section, but not include it word for word. Suggested rewrite included below. Barry m (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Chief Illiniwek would be referred to as the University's mascot in general English usage, although the university's Board of Trustees and its supporters have stated their preference to be symbol. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams. To further separate Chief Illiniwek from the mascot label, he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games (as is typical for university sports mascots) and in recent years he did not perform at road games, although, in some cases, this was because other universities would not permit a symbol who did not hold a mascot title to perform at their home games.

Acceptability

Please note only Rhetor230, Alatari and Barry_m should edit this section, as it relates to accepting the above Third Opinion.

• User talk:Rhetor230 - Suggest Alternative

I would say the above rewrite is not accurate or acceptable. The reason the other schools banned the chief was because they considered it an offensive mascot, rejecting the university's and pro chief side's contention that it was a symbol. The local mascot-symbol debate was irrelevant to their objection to the chief, contrary to this proposed rewrite.

This rewrite loses the sense of the recently disputed sentence that disinterested observers would be likely to call the chief a 'mascot' and would only use 'symbol' to refer to the logo.

I would again propose my (14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)) rewrite in response to the post by Badagnani (08:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Rhetor230 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Alatari - Mascot may very well be the common usage for what Chief Illiniwek is called throughout America but it needs citation for this is a controversial subject. The term in general English usage is unwieldy and unnecessary. This isn't a dictionary and the definition was given in the leadin. Alatari (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Other editors respond:

Re-write

Chief Illiniwek would be referred to as the University's mascot in general English usage, although the university's Board of Trustees and pro-chief supporters have stated their preference to be symbol. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams. To further separate Chief Illiniwek from the mascot label, he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games (as is typical for university sports mascots) and in recent years he did not perform at road games, although, in some cases, this was because other universities would not permit the character to perform at their home games, citing him as potentially offensive.

Re-write Acceptability

Please note only Rhetor230, Alatari and Barry_m should edit this section, as it relates to accepting the re-write Third Opinion.

• User talk:Rhetor230 - Accept / Suggest Modification

This is a good rewrite; I can accept it but I suggest two minor changes-

1) change 'pro-chief supporters' to 'chief supporters'

2) remove 'potentially' from the last sentence. Rhetor230 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Alatari - : Chief Illiniwek would be referred to as the University's mascot since he performed many of the functions of other schools mascots, although the university's Board of Trustees and pro-chief supporters have stated their preference to be symbol. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams. To further separate Chief Illiniwek from the mascot label, he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games (as is typical for university sports mascots) and in recent years he did not perform at road games, although, in some cases, this was because other universities would not permit the character to perform at their home games, citing him as potentially offensive.
  • My language would need citations showing that he indeed perform mascot duties while at games and that the school paper and other sources described him as mascot in their stories. Alatari (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a NY Times story which uses mascot in the story and the headline:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/education/28mascot.html

"University Reverses Policy to Allow Mascot’s Return"

Here is a Chicago Tribune story that uses mascot:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-il-chiefilliniwek-lo,1,4967350.story

"The school did away with the Chief Illiniwek mascot last year after being sanctioned by the NCAA."

And here is a DI article in which the university’s own spokesman uses mascot:

http://www.illinimedia.com/di/apr_00/apr13/news/news01.shtml

"'The final statement will be made by the board,' University spokesman Bill Murphy said. 'Whether they reaffirm their previous decision, get rid of the mascot or do absolutely nothing at all.'"

This should be enough to show that in general usage by disinterested parties, mascot is the default term. But if not, a simple google search yields many more cases in which people who are not biased in favor of the chief prefer the term mascot.

Also, here are two articles citing the chief ban from other big ten schools, both of which also use mascot:

http://espn.go.com/ncb/news/2001/0305/1131037.html

"Numerous Big Ten schools have banned the mascot from attending Illinois road games."

http://dartreview.com/issues/2.26.01/bigorange.html

"He has been banned from performing at Illini road games by some Big Ten schools."

Rhetor230 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-write 2

Chief Illiniwek would generally be referred to as the University's mascot since he performed many of the functions of other schools mascots, although the university's Board of Trustees and chief supporters have stated their preference to be symbol. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams. To further separate Chief Illiniwek from the mascot label, he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games (as is typical for university sports mascots) and in recent years he did not perform at road games, although, in some cases, this was because other universities would not permit the character to perform at their home games, citing him as offensive.

Re-write 2 Acceptability

• User talk:Rhetor230 - Suggest Modification

Since he performed many of the functions of other schools’ mascots, Chief Illiniwek is generally referred to as the university’s mascot, although the university's Board of Trustees and chief supporters have stated their preference to be symbol. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams and he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games, as is typical for university sports mascots. In recent years he did not perform at road games, although this practice was initiated because other Big Ten universities would not permit the character to perform at their home games, citing him as offensive.

(The links I provide above can serve as citations for the first and last sentences.)Rhetor230 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Alatari - No Response

This usage should be easy to source with excerpts/links to public media and how they referred to Chief Illiniwek. School papers over the years, Chicago Tribune, etc. Those kind of sources on usage will be hard to refute. Alatari (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there's one source in the article that would just need copying across to the correct place. Apart from that is it a yes for the wording? or are there other improvements you could suggest? Barry m (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with Rhetor's re-write above? Barry m (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no response, Rhetor's modification has been deemed to be acceptable. Barry m (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Outcome

• You understand that AfD votes are kept up for a week at least. This has only been up for 2 days so there is no Outcome result yet. Also I wanted 4 or 5 opinions to reach a consensus but the 3rd OPinion template was the only template I know of. Hopefully it will draw in a few more opinions in the next 2 weeks to reach an appropriate consensus. Alatari (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since Rhetor230 is possibly a sockpuppet of another user and has been involved with 3RR violations and a banning I propose we regard his opinions as an hostile POV campaign not interested in WP policies or guidelines. Hopefully the main account will come in and discuss these issues. Alatari (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't my place to post, but since I am the "main account" Alatari accused of being the controller over Rhetor230, and the checkuser came back negative (complete with an apology on my talk page for botching the checkuser process from the checkuser clerk), how about you discuss the article instead of levying blanket attacks against users and work on a collaborative resolution? Justinm1978 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy against continually and knowingly posting false accusations of sockpuppeting against other users?Rhetor230 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though they couldn't prove he was a sockpuppet he still logged out to make the fourth rev from his IP address thus leading to the ban and showing a lack of WP:FAITH. Alatari (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained, my log in was timed out and I neglected to sign back in when I made those edits. I am not the most savvy wikki user but I do know that ip addresses are traceable and, even if inclined toward such deception, would not do it because detection would be inevitable. You are certainly violating the assumption of good faith and wiki ethos by continuing to post false accusations.Rhetor230 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My accusations weren't made in bad faith. You exhibited all the signs of a sockpuppet. Since you only edit this page, are involved in an edit war, have no user description, and took no time to consider compromises. Many would still consider you a meatpuppet being called in to fight an edit war by another WP user. Not good faith acts. Spread out your editing and get more involved with WP and these concerns will vanish. Alatari (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting left margin) As I replied to another editor above, it's not for you to tell me or anyone else what pages to edit or not edit. Just because I don't edit another page does not somehow make my contributions illegitimate. And, in fact, it does appear to be bad faith when you continually and knowingly post false accusations. Neither am I a meatpuppet -- nobody 'brought me in" to be their proxy. Believe it or not, two people can disagree with you and not be in collusion (or the same person masquerading as two). Rhetor230 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-write with Rhetor230's minor changes. Barry m (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Chief Illiniwek would be referred to as the University's mascot in general English usage, although the university's Board of Trustees and chief supporters have stated their preference to be symbol. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams. To further separate Chief Illiniwek from the mascot label, he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games (as is typical for university sports mascots) and in recent years he did not perform at road games, although, in some cases, this was because other universities would not permit the character to perform at their home games, citing him as offensive. Outcome still uncertain. Alatari (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Outcome

Rewrite

Since he performed many of the functions of other schools’ mascots, Chief Illiniwek is generally referred to as the university’s mascot, although the university's Board of Trustees and chief supporters have stated their preference to be symbol. The beginning of the Chief Illiniwek tradition predated the use of mascots in most sports teams and he was never on the sidelines with the cheerleaders during games, as is typical for university sports mascots. In recent years he did not perform at road games, although this practice was initiated because other Big Ten universities would not permit the character to perform at their home games, citing him as offensive.

Barry m (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation

This link appears broken. Alatari (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Illinilogo.png

Image:Illinilogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It seems that you could have just as easily done it yourself. Badagnani (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NCAA involvement

This is probably common knowledge, but the NCAA's ban affected more than 18 schools. I attended a Div. 2AA school in Pennsylvania and we had to change our nickname because of the ruling. Maybe someone should note that the 18 schools refers only to Div. 1A schools. Smitacular2 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Urban Indians

"Founded in 1953, Chicago's American Indian Center is the oldest urban Indian center in the country". Not quite. The Phoenix Indian Center was founded in 1947. The Chicago institution was the second. See http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid={CCB6DEB2-007E-416A-A0B2-D15954B48600}. I leave it to someone who is working on this article to decide how to reword. - Jmabel | Talk 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Replaced some bare url refs with citation templates, found several dead links and one new source for the Roger Ebert quote.FriendlyFred (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tuscola High School dance cancellation

The source being cited repeats the claims of school officials, as does the editor who added this ("Racing Wind"), but neither provide evidence for that claim. It's perfectly appropriate to note the lack of evidence. There is *no* requirement to cite another source to note that a cited source does not provide evidence for it's claim... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidrhet (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The cited source simply reports what school officials gave as their reason for the cancellation. Your opinion that the source is biased without citing an alternative source is OR, so I will revert your edit again.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Another editor agreed, and beat me to it.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The source provides no evidence of threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidrhet (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Added source noting complete lack of evidence for claim repeated in original sourceVidrhet (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems rather remarkable that two editors repeatedly reverted edits that simply noted that a source does not in fact provide any evidence whatsoever to back up claims it was cited to support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidrhet (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That article you linked is basically a blog post by a citizen, not an editorial or news story by a traditional / credible news organization. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's no less credible than a local tv station that uncritically repeats a school official's claim of violent threats without providing any evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidrhet (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you accusing a TV news station of? Bias or lying? Are you saying that a local TV station has poor editorial oversight? All you have linked here is a blog post by someone no more reliable than you or I. See WP:USERGENERATED for a discussion on the reliability of sites that have large numbers of "editors" that post blog like entries. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an online magazine with just as much editorial oversight as a local tv station. Surely you're not attempting to claim that the tv story actually *does* provide evidence for the school official's unsupported claim of alleged violent threats? Why are you so dead-set against simply noting that the cited source does not support one of the claims it was cited to supposedly support?--Vidrhet (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying you don't know that the TV station did not see evidence. Editorial oversight of what is basically a blog is not the same as a TV station or newspaper. Your "independent" online magazine has dozens of contributors that are just local members of the community. It's his opinion and is his original research. He is no more of an expert on the subject than you or I. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, it provides *exactly* as much evidence for the claim of no violence or threats as the school official or the wcia story provide for their claims of violent threats.--Vidrhet (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A public school press release is much more reliable than a blogger. Sorry. Dual Freq (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, not a blog. An online magazine. Your POV is showing. And again, why are you so opposed to noting that the wcia story provides no evidence to support the claim it was cited to supposedly support <-- please answer this question... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidrhet (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this will be the last time a single purpose account holder will accuse someone of being biased. You can't use on online opinion piece as evidence of anything more than his opinion. He is not an expert on the subject and we have no way of knowing if he is knowledgeable or reliable on the subject at hand. It is strictly the opinion of a person on the internet, one of dozens of editors on a website. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no point of arguing about the quality of sources; there is a presumption based upon WP guidelines that any TV station has more editorial oversight that a web page, whether it is called a blog or a "magazine". The new material can remain as long as it is presented as an opinion of one person, since the topic is essentially one of conflicting opinions. However the new source was not cited correctly, since it did not fully reflect Pauly's opinion that Dozier's performance, which he calls a "minstrel show", should never have been allowed in a high school in the first place, and that the school was being dishonest about their reason for cancelling it, blaming it on social media to avoid taking responsibility.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I just have a few minor edits.--Vidrhet (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad grammar, removing the author's name, and changing the content from anti-chief to anti-mascot are not a minor edits.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Using past tense to describe a past even is not 'bad grammar.' With all due respect to the author, he is not notable regarding this topic -- why name him? And please recheck the article, the quote about no violence is in reference to protests against Native American mascots, not just the chief.--Vidrhet (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I should have edited rather than reverting but that is moot: if Pauly is unworthy of being named his opinions are unworthy of being cited.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is getting tedious to continue to remove changes that reflect personal opinions not supported by reference to reliable sources. The TV station and newspaper report of what the school stated, being reliable sources, must remain. There is no need to call these reports "alleged" or "claims" which is not neutral language; and I have never seen simple news reports summarized on WP with such an implication that they may be false, which could be "weasel words".FriendlyFred (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Noting that the source does not include evidence to back up claims of threats is entirely reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidrhet (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing WP has nothing to do with your opinion as to what is reasonable; questioning or editorializing about what was reported in the news in this way is original research.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Noting that a source does not support a claim it was cited to support is not original research. I really don't understand why noting this simple reality is something you're trying to refuse to allow.

Suggest adding: "A local online magazine noted that no evidence or quotations of the alleged threats were presented."Vidrhet (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Having no hope for a resolution, I have submitted this topic for Formal mediation (see your talk page).FriendlyFred (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have and, as you've seen and responded to, I've added to the mediation page.Vidrhet (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the mediation request was rejected, and their suggestions for alternative resolutions seem to be too much trouble for me to pursue for such a simple case, I can only restate what is obvious:

Based upon Wikipedia guidelines regarding content, such as being neutral, using reliable sources, and avoiding original research; the article currently summarizes what the TV station and newspaper reported. Adding any content beyond these sources in original research unless an equally reliable source is cited. The "online magazine" source does not qualify, since it is clearly marked as an opinion piece, and is pure speculation by a U of I alumni, not reportage. There may be more to the story, but Wikipedia is not a about "truth", but verifiable facts.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I get that you don't care whether the claims are true; but you cannot credibly argue that the unsupported claims of threats from people opposed to the chief are "verified" in either of the cited sources. To restate the obvious, if a cited source does not actually back up the claims it was cited in order to support, then either that lack of evidence should be noted or the unsupported claims should be removed. There isn't going to be a story about how the high school school officials made unsupported claims of threats. Why has no one been able to produce credible evidence that the threats were actually real? This was a pretty minor issue that simply did not generate a lot of coverage. And that brings up the question of whether this non-event should even be in the entry — I'd be fine with removing it entirely. If the paragraph stays, I suggest adding "In an opinion piece on a local online magazine, one University of Illinois graduate questioned whether any threats were actually made. [cite]"Vidrhet (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason you need a reliable source is because you are essentially saying, Tuscola school officials are liars, without any evidence that they are lying. Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is. Are you saying it is implausible to imagine that people use "bad language" and make "personal attacks" in online postings on a school facebook post when they see something they disagree with? If you are then I would say, welcome to the internet, bad language and personal attacks happen every day. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, but now will only add that the blog article is no help to Vidrhet since Pauly's speculations are anti-Chief; he also accepts that unpleasant comments were made online but were not the real reason for the cancellation (not being credible threats), but rather that the school realized they never should have scheduled Dozier's "minstrel show" in the first place and don't want to say so.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)