Jump to content

Talk:Native American mascot controversy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Name Change and edits to Establish NPOV

The article on evolution is neutral, in that it gives due weight to creationists by noting their objection and dismissing it as unscientific.

This subject of this article has the US Civil Rights Commission opinion to represent the legal point of view (with concurrence of many native, civil rights, educational organizations), and the APA resolution with its numerous studies to represent the scientific point of view. The harm done by Native American Mascots is no more controversial than evolution based upon knowledge, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to present. The popular but uneducated opinion of fans who "want to keep their indian" should be reduced to a single line; and the name of this article should be changed to Racist Stereotypes and Cultural Appropriation in American Sports which is the title of a symposium that will be held at the National Museum of the American Indian in February [1].

(This is my response to an attempt to vandalize the article by an anonymous editor.) FigureArtist (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the article suffers from a number of problems:

  • Too much of the content consists of isolated quotations enclosed in a format that produces over-sized quotation marks, making the article difficult to read.
  • Sections that relate to one another are not grouped logically, resulting in additions being made to the wrong section, or duplicated.
  • There has been few additions of new content, and the older content has not been maintained, so there are many broken web links.

There are so many changes needed that I am doing a complete re-write rather than individual edits. My draft is at User:FigureArtist/mascots. FigureArtist (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello FigureArtist
Much of what you say is true. The large quotes make the article more difficult to read (and also add undue emphasis/weight). Organization could be improved, and information updated. I like much of what you have done at User:FigureArtist/mascots. It LOOKS and reads better. However, I think you fall far short of NPOV with the effort. I would be happy to work with you, on this draft, to try to achieve that goal. However, success would likely require a much larger community participation. Thanks for beginning this effort, and hopefully we can get others involved. Gulbenk (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I would not expect to do this alone, and I am glad to hear from someone. My strength in writing is the overall organization. I also do well in finding references (too many!) NPOV Falls short in which direction? FigureArtist (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Title

Appropriation does not mean using the real thing inappropriately, it means using a fake as the real thing: for example a Halloween costume Indian as honoring Native American culture.FigureArtist (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I am more interested in changing the content than the name, but it strikes me as being on par with "teach the controversy" nonsense from "Intelligent Design" proponents. FigureArtist (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Or there is a perfectly good NPOV name already. I'm Native American and I've been involved with this fight my entire life, so dial down the insults. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soap box. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Uyvsdi is right. Your comments clearly come from the other extreme end of the spectrum. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW I'm a "she." But our point is that yes, in Wikipedia, the teams do need to have a say. It must be neutral and simply present verifiable facts, not forward one point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you want freedom to post anything you want, you can start a blog for free through Google blogger or other services. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I had not made any changes to the article at this point, so being cautioned not to do so was premature. I requested input for my proposals, but was instead attacked for even thinking of them.FigureArtist (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This baffles me. I have not insulted anyone. The article currently gives almost equal treatment to random statements by fans and team owners (reported in the press with only two public opinion polls as 'unbiased' evidence) vs. statements supported by significant scientific and legal citations. Although my family has unproven and basically unprovable stories of a distant Mattaponi ancestor, otherwise I am 96% Northern European. As a trained social scientist, I read the studies referenced by the APA recommendation and take their view, which is hardly extreme. It is basically the same as that of the US Civil Rights Commission in 2001, that the topic of this article is a form of racial discrimination that needs to be abolished. I was born and live in the Nation's Capitol, home of the worst example of this behavior. When the NMAI Symposium on the subject is held in 24 days, I hope anyone looking for information will have a well balanced WP article to read.FigureArtist (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Telling Uyvsdi (or anyone else) that she's on the same level as narrow-minded right-winged evolution nuts is extremely insulting. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to discontinue these insults.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I insulted the tone of the article, not anyone personally.FigureArtist (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: if you wanna pull all your favorite changes in userspace w/o allowing anybody else to participate and then plan on copying everything over in one big chunk, you can expect to rightfully have your massive swooping changes reverted, probably by yours truly. I suggest you come back out of your corner and operate in mainspace. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The message on my user page is don't directly edit, make comment on the talk page, so I have not locked anyone out. I will try to make incremental changes, but given all of the citation and formatting issues as well as the content, it will be difficult not to upload entire sections.FigureArtist (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not the way it works; I'm not gonna comment what you own. If you copy it or large chunks into mainspace, I'll blanket-revert. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am insulting dumb white boys that want to continue to put on Hollywood Indian costumes and do the war chant and tomahawk chop...FigureArtist (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You need to cut this bullshit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
There's the first insult in this discussion.FigureArtist (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi FigureArtist
You state that the APA Resolution and the US Civil Rights Commission statement are "hardly extreme", but I believe that they are. Both state, without exception, that the practice is racist, hurtful, and wrong. Period. No room for any acceptable use. Both statements were made prior to the FSU/NCAA situation. Since then, there has been push back from both native and non-native groups who have expanded on acceptable use. That leaves the inflexible positions of APA and the USCRC looking...extreme. Gulbenk (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The unvarnished truth appears extreme, but true extremism was someone like Russell Means, who insisted that redskin=nigger without historical evidence and wanted immediate and total change. I do not include such opinions, but I cannot argue with science. I think the NCAA agrees with the science, but worked out a political solution to move things in the right direction. An unbiased article here would also say that is the right direction. FigureArtist (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Move/Merge FSU section?

The section on FSU is large enough to warrant its own article, assuming it is noteworthy, or it could be merged into Florida State Seminoles or FSU, which contain no mention of controversy. As it stands it is too detailed for the purpose of illustrating the issue of tribal sponsorship of specific teams. FigureArtist (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is already a article on the FSU mascot with a controversy section that links here; so that would be the likely place for the full story.

There are thousands of schools with names/mascots, there are already too many references; this article should not be cluttered with details of each case. FigureArtist (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose It should stay here. I think the FSU situation is at the very heart of this issue. It stands as a counterpoint to those who say that any use of Native American imagery is racist and hurtful. It also illustrates the complexity of the situation, where a tribe endorses the use of their name and imagery by non-natives, provided that it meets their notion of being respectful and "authentic". This brings up questions: (1) Is the use of Native American names and imagery by schools and sports organizations racist and hurtful per se? (2) If not, what are the parameters of acceptable use? (3) Are only caricatures demeaning, or is any non-endorsed image wrong? (4) If the majority of Native Americans do not find the use of their names and imagery offensive, how many people do activist groups like AIM really represent...and does that even matter? (4) Who is the final arbiter of acceptability? A non-native regulatory body (either sports or government), a local tribe, or the court of public opinion? Without FSU, this article runs the risk of becoming a straight up POV piece. Gulbenk (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, some of the FSU material should remain, enough to make the points you bring up:
  1. Yes, the behavior of whites playing Indian interferes with young Native Americans developing a healthy sense of their identity, is always harmful, and would not be tolerated for any other ethnicity. For example, there was the story about the Penn State sorority that was reprimanded for having a Mexican Party, and that was private until someone put it on Facebook.
  2. The range of use is none for those who think that authentic drumming, dancing and costumes become in-authentic as soon as they are taken out of context and placed in a sports stadium. When I see YouTube videos of all the FSU students doing the war chant and the tomahawk chop, I tend to agree, but that's not my call. I don't expect radical change. The article should indicate that the current trend is positive and needed, not give the other side equal time.
  3. Most of the names and images would be ok if they were truly respected but they are not, there are too many dumb white boys out there.
  4. This is the stickiest point. Each tribe is a sovereign nation, and the leaders do not agree on total ban vs. tribal consent. But my reading of the situation is that none want the situation to remain the same. A majority would like "redskin" banned, buck-toothed caricatures gone, and the other highly egregious behavior ended.
  • ps.

Here is a link to the webcast of the Senate Committee testimony, of particular interest is that by Chaske Spencer, an actor in the Twilight Series, with regard to #1. He is one guy, but much of the APA material indicates that his experience is typical. FigureArtist (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your bulleted points are all statements of your own opinion, which is rather irrelevant for the article. Just like the statements of opinion by user Gulbenk are opinionbased rather than source based. It is also incorrect to say that the article should note that the trend is positive and needed, the article should not say any such thing since that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:EDITORIALIZE. It should state that certain groups and individuals think the development is positive and needed, and note that this is the majority view if that is the case (in which case it should be supported by sources not assertions). Weight to different viewpoint should be allotted based on prominence in the sources alone, of course not giving equal time to different views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not know I needed to cite refs on a Talk page. FigureArtist (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well it helps to distinguish your opinion from others', and to give authority to your statements. In anycase the article cannot say that a specific development is good and needed. It can say that someone notable has said that it is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, the statement would be that the APA, USCRC, NAACP (1999), National Education Association (Every Year for some time), and NCAA all support the end these practices for non-native teams, and they say immediately. Opposing views pale by comparison. FigureArtist (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I listed only the 100% impartial organizations, not the several Native American Organizations who agree. Is there any unbiased, impartial opposition? (This does not include public opinion reported in the newspapers.) OK, so a WP article cannot give an opinion, but is stating that the issue is "debatable" not similar value judgement? FigureArtist (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The FSU section does seem very large compared to the rest of the article so per WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARY I think it is a good idea to spin it out to the article on Osceola and Renegade and leave a summary in place. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps someone can run a word count on the FSU section (and other sections) so that we can get a better definition of "very big". I'm not quite sure what FigureArtist is referring to, when stating that the NCAA supports the end of "these practices for non-native teams". What practices, specifically? The ones they sanctioned in the FSU situation? Also, do the APA, USCRC, NAACP, and NEA all renew their objections annually, or just the NEA? I couldn't tell by the comment. If all renew (or modify) their positions annually, this would be important information to add to the article. It would help to update decade old and seemingly out-of-date information. Also, why do the opposing views of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma "pale by comparision" to views expressed by non-native groups? Gulbenk (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I am a social scientist by training, not a lawyer, so I am not used to having to restate everything that has gone before every time I make a new statement. What practices: the subject of the article. All the organizations use similar wording in their statements. The exception for native schools is implied or explicit, so the schools acquiring permission from individual tribes are not "opposing views". Any school may seek this permission, some succeed, some fail (such as U of ND, an example that is strikingly absent although the case is fully covered here. All organizations other than the NEA have issued statements that they have not retracted, so they stand. The NEA chooses to put their recommendation in their annual report with all the other goal they seek for schools. FigureArtist (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ·ʍaunus I greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments regarding this article and suggestions for better, more authoritative, communication in Talk discussions. However, I disagree (rather strongly) with your assessment of the FSU section in this article. The FSU situation is the most current major development in this controversy. The resolution reached by the NCAA, with support from native tribes, directly opposes positions and opinions expressed by the APA and others. It contains statements from authoritative sources within a native group, that activists within that group, who oppose the use of the name and imagery of natives by non-natives, are a minority. A recorded vote within the governing body of that native group seems to validate those statements. While the Seminole experience should not be extrapolated to other native groups, it is nonetheless noteworthy, and should be included in this article. Why would it be incorrect to give these real world examples equal weight with the academic hypothesis expressed by APA. This controversy seems to be unresolved, and unlike FigureArtist, I do not believe that the APA is the final word or authority on the matter. Please do not unilaterally sanction the removal of opposing views, by "trimming" the FSU section. If you feel that I am wrong in my stance, perhaps we can take up the matter with some higher authority within this encyclopedia. I am completely willing to abide by the consensus of those more senior than myself, I just don't believe we've heard that yet. Gulbenk (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't have any higher authorities regarding editorial decisions on content than the talkpage consensus. The way to resolve it is to get more input. You could start an RfC to attract attention from other editors. I agree that the FSU issue makes for an interesting case, but it is not the most prominent case in the literature on the Mascot controversy I think. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I belong to a Facebook group Native Appropriations which posted this link RE: FSU [2]

FigureArtist (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And another: [3]: Can/Should a WP article do justice to the fine details of the FSU mascot? I do not think so, it needs to be summarized within a general description of the issue of individual tribes sanctioning mascots, which would include all the others that have done so, or denied such a request.FigureArtist (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Varying degrees of offensiveness?

This section makes a statement that appears to be followed by isolated pro and con statements which imply a comparison but do not reference a citation actually saying there are "degrees of offensiveness". Perhaps they exist, such as observations that redskins is the worst name, and Chief Wahoo is the most insulting logo, but I do not have specific references that make a comparison, likely because authors are usually saying its all bad and should end. FigureArtist (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up citations and formatting of this section, including a bit of editorializing by the original author of a Boston Globe piece that is now inaccessible except to paid subscribers. I found better references for the other three quotations.

However, the cases referenced do not make any obvious point, certainly not the subject of the section.

FigureArtist (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a Boston Globe article from 2005 that is now only accessible to paid subscribers. It was used in four inline references, now only three since I found an alternate for the NCAA decision within the Degrees of Offense section. (A better one, since it is the NCAA itself.) FigureArtist (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of APA Resolution / Civil Rights Commission Opinion

If anyone looks at this page they will see that I added a comment on the APA Resolution when I first started editing WP in Oct. 2012. (Did not know about adding to the bottom.) I added the outline of the resolution expecting it to be expanded and clarified by other editors, which has not occurred.

The first clarification that should be made is that although not explicitly doing so, its definitions of terms and conditions for harmful ethnic stereotyping and cultural appropriation described in the document clearly apply only to non-native schools and teams. Harmful actions are done by a majority group against a powerless minority, something that is apparently not understood when anyone says, as they do in the article, "What about the Fighting Irish or the Ragin' Cajuns?": you cannot discriminate against yourself.

The question becomes what is a native school/team? Obviously one that has a majority of native students/members, but one that has a name based on a particular tribe that has the permission and cooperation to use that name and the tribe's authentic images would also qualify. Thus the NCAA practice of granting waivers in the latter case is not a contrary opinion of the APA Resolution.

More than that, the APA Resolution is not an opinion. It represents the current consensus of an organization of 137,000 academics and practitioners of psychology in the US and Canada. This level of agreement, with such blunt language, is not easily made and should not be taken lightly. It represents hundreds of peer reviewed studies and articles by experts on the effects of ethnic stereotyping: loss of self-esteem, bullying, substance abuse, etc. There should be no issue with defining the basic problem addressed by this article in the same terms. The USCRC opinion, written I assume by lawyers, uses its own language to describe the same problem. I it also represents a consensus of a number of Civil Rights experts based upon the evidence they take as significant, and was also not made lightly.

It is my understanding that a WP article is supposed to represent the current consensus of experts on any topic. That is why I questioned this article's NPOV.

I think you are employing a bit of Circular reasoning here (specifically Begging the question). You start off by wishing the APA resolution to say something it does not say, and then you fit that (wished for) statement to the current dispute. It involves your first assumption that facts (exemptions for native schools) not directly specified in the APA statement, are nonetheless "implied". You then expand (on your own, as far as I can tell) definition of "native school" to include schools populated by non-natives (who have obtained the permission of natives). It's a nice bit of business, since the fallacy solves both the "inflexible language" problem of the APA resolution, and the seemingly improper (but now "okay") actions by FSU, the NCAA, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Except, of course, that it is not real. The APA could actually move in that direct, if they wished, but they have not done so. That is why I asked the question about annual reaffirmations (or modifications) of the decade-old resolution. I'm sorry, but wishing doesn't make it so. Gulbenk (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
(Sorry about not signing)
  • Are you talking about the entire APA Resolution or the Summary I put in the article? Are you familiar with reading social science research? I am not wishing anything, but understanding what the entire resolution means based upon a BA in Psych and MA in Community Development. I know expertise is verboten on WP, but I don't know how to avoid it. Cited sources sometime mean something only in the context of a domain of knowledge. Native Americans cannot misappropriate their own cultures or stereotype themselves, so psychologists do not make it explicit. The Civil Rights Commission are lawyers, so they do. And yes the APA has updated, the last being 2010.FigureArtist (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked for third party interpretations of the APA Resolution but found none either way (strict or loose). The State of Oregon passed a total ban which was later contested by two tribes, but I do not know if the APA was used as justification for the law. There is at least a minority the thinks that all mascots are stereotypical and should be banned, but is difficult to gauge a consensus with such a wide-ranging number of interest groups. It might be claimed that the APA only represents ivy-tower academics, except that many are Native American psychologists, one of whom spoke in favor of the Resolution in her testimony before the Senate recently. (See link previously posted above.)FigureArtist (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion vs. Verified Fact

Recent edits to this article would indicate that contributors are confusing opinions and editorial comments with statements of fact. Reference #41 (Testimony by Suzan Harjo before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; May 5, 2011) is an example. Without independent verification, Ms. Harjo's testimony cannot be cited as a statement of fact. It is, rather, her stated opinion. If she included a (reliable) source in her testimony, then just cite that reliable source next to reference 41, that would help. Gulbenk (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, the article does at times present individual views as facts. These should instead explicitly be attributed to their sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the citation

How about all the other opinions in this article? They are ok because they were published by the mainstream media, such as this bit of editorializing (Anil Adyanthaya is the author of newspaper article cited, also an attorney):

Anil Adyanthaya from the Boston Globe wrote on June 5, 2005, "The use of Aztec or Seminole as a nickname by itself would not appear to be racist, as such names refer to a particular civilization rather than an entire race of people. In this way, they are no different from other school nicknames such as Trojans and Spartans (like Aztecs, ancient peoples) or Fighting Irish and Flying Dutchmen (like Seminoles, nationalities). Similarly, Warriors and Braves are no different from the fighting men of other cultures, like Vikings, Minutemen, or Musketeers (all current NCAA mascots, the first of which is also an NFL mascot) so it seems hard to argue that their use is uniquely demeaning in some way.Adyanthaya, Anil (June 5, 2005). "Sports, mascots, and Native Americans". The Boston Globe.

The the context of this comment cannot be checked, since the source is now only accessible to Boston Globe subscribers. FigureArtist (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That statement should of course also be attributed to Anil Adyanthaya and not to the paper he works for. The article can include opinion no problem, but only if it is the opinion of someone notable and only it has to be clearly stated whose opinion it is. Indian Country today is a fully reliable media outlet, and should be considered mainstream media for issues pertaining to Native Americans.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that there is any way to fairly discuss this issue without reporting a selection of opinions, properly attributed. By the way, the full text of the Anil Adyanthaya article is available to HighBeam Research subscribers (which includes many Wikipedia editors who have received access per the program described at WP:HIGHBEAM) here:[4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that the quote is important enough to bother; the point, if there is one, that names themselves are not always offensive, could be made from more substantial (and accessible) references.FigureArtist (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The Anil Adyanthaya/Boston Globe source had been cited in four places in the article, but I have reduced it to one by finding better, more current sources. It had never been a good source, being an op/ed piece by a lawyer with no particular expertise.FigureArtist (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sampling Error

FigureArtist, You may wish to step back a moment and reassess your actions. I don't believe that you are helping your case with those two "explanations" of the survey results. One dismisses the results on the basis that the survey didn't sample the "real" indians, while the other (which is really quite demeaning) states that indians don't have the capacity to tell when they are being insulted. Evidently, only activists are immune to the mind-numbing effects of racist imagery. It demonstrates a desperation on the part of the speakers to explain away results that undermine their cause. They (rather crudely) attack scientific surveys conducted with disclosed methodolgy, that go against them, while embracing (or at least, not objecting to) a small poll, of unknown size and methodology, that goes their way. If I had inserted those two edits in the article, you would be within your rights to question my motivation.

Here is a suggestion that will improve the article by offering a valid and intellectually honest objection to those two surveys: find someone suggesting a sampling error (other than "fake" indians). Some Native Americans (in parts of Alaska, and perhaps elsewhere) don't speak English as a first language. So a valid survey should be conducted in their mother tongue. Others (in Alaska, and parts of the west) live in remote locations with limited communication with the wider world. Their exclusion from the sample may be statistically significant. Those are just two ideas I would float, if I were Russell Means. Someone of notable position in the Native American community may have come up with something much better. I would try to find it. Nearly anything is better than numb/fake indians. Gulbenk (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The WP way of doing things as I have been led to understand (against my will) is to include all opinions as cited, and let the reader make of them what they will. There is no way to wait for good sources when other editors do not. I felt forced to cite each bit of information as I found it. The original citation of the SI article was only one extreme, and needed another for balance (but not the truly insulting one: "there are happy campers on every plantation"). However it is not about dumb Indians, it is a well-recognized phenomenon in the literature on minorities; it is inevitable that there is internalization of the majority view by the oppressed. This is part of what is meant by lowering of self-esteem. Of course, no mainstream media source is going to describe it that way.
My second addition to the section is a scientifically valid objection to standard opinion polls by a former judge who became a professor, unfortunately quoted from a newspaper. It has nothing to do with fake Indians, merely social science's observation that self identification is a poor indicator of who has a real attachment to native culture rather than having a great-great-great-grandfather (as I do) but no family traditions. It is a form of sampling error. Polls may have the aura of science because of their methodology, but actual scientists do not make claims such as "nobody thinks this is a problem" from two studies; that is what journalists do.FigureArtist (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Found a peer-reviewed journal article that specifically addresses the problem of surveys.FigureArtist (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What next?

I have made significant changes without much response.

An unresolved issue is the size and content of the FSU section. The opening sentence needs revision: The Florida State University's use of Seminole imagery for its Florida State Seminoles athletic teams makes an interesting case study because of the university's close ties to the Seminole Tribe of Florida. It is no more an interesting case study than several others, but it does illustrate the evolution of a mascot, and the development of a relationship with a tribe that did not exist until the general "consciousness raising" period of the 70's. The section also leaves out that the war chant and tomahawk chop originated at FSU, and continue to greet Osceola as he makes his appearance? The article on Osceola and Renegade has essentially the same history, and refers to this article for the controversy. The history could then been summarized here and refer to the history in the other article?

Equally interesting case studies (resistance to change) are U of IL (Chief Illiniwek), the UND Fighting Sioux, and of course the Washington Redskins, all of which have their own articles. The latter has both a controversy article and a controversy section in the team article (which are prone to vandalism). There is a brief mention of controversy in the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves articles, but not the KC Chiefs or Chicago Blackhawks articles. The Golden State Warriors hardly belong here anymore except as an example of thoughtful evolution away from stereotyping to positive images. The information in these articles seem to have been edited independently, and not always consistently.FigureArtist (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there any notable articles or opinions regarding the Blackhawks? I can't seem to find any. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

New Sources

I have been reading two of the books "Dancing at Halftime" and "Team Spirits" listed under Further Reading. (Available on Kindle) The first is now an inline ref. I have also located Journal articles to replace/augment some outdated or less reliable sources. (I have access to a University library system). This led me to revise the beginning of the History section substantially. The NCAI began its campaign against stereotypes in the 1940s not the 1960s.FigureArtist (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edmonton Eskimos?

Other than having a polar bear mascot named Nanook, I have no sense of where this team fits into the topic. I would not like to presume to know anything about English-Canadian culture, what I know is stereotypical. I have only been to French Canada. FigureArtist (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

William and Mary

There was a citation needed tag added for a minor comment regarding the choice of the Griffin mascot allowing for the return of feathers in the W&M logo. I did not contribute that comment, and finding not reference, deleted it. Blogs indicate it may have been discussed, but not done; certainly not officially. FigureArtist (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

current status info

This message is intended for FriendlyFred. There was information in the "current status" section about states that have Indian mascot laws. Somehow during all of the editing the information was removed. I'm going to restore it as the info is relevant to this subject and that it is of historical significance. --Turn685 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was a complete duplicate of information already in the Education section, and being from 2010, no longer current. FriendlyFred (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How inclusive should an article be?

The Oneida Indian Nation has sparked a renewed discussion of the Washington Redskins with an ad campaign that started with the new football season. Even President Obama and Bob Costas are now on record in opposition to the name, which has brought out another wave of comment from others. I try to keep current, and had been saving many additional references on a sandbox page if I thought that the point was already well-documented in the articles. I tend to be a terse writer, assuming that simplicity is more understandable. The opposite approach is seen in the article on Chief Wahoo,which has been flagged as too long, and has 371 references. I plan to clean out my sandbox, and hope to strike a balance between covering the topic and readability.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article had been stable for some time, so I have made some organizational changes, and removed material that were either not supported by sources or too detailed for this general topic, and are covered in their own articles.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discern and whet the arguments opposing and supporting the use of Native American mascots

The sections outlining the opposing and supporting argument should carry the weight of this article. The two sections are not represented equally and the arguments stated in each section do not clearly align with their stated headings. Arguments in the opposing section are overly limited, and easily expandable by drawing from material that is available within the remaining body of the article.

A key example: "Opponents also highlight the seeming double standard for human beings as mascots where there are no mascots based on African Americans, or Asian Americans depicted in sports."

This same argument is cited in the opposing section, but with better elaboration.

"The use of Aztec or Seminole as a nickname by itself would not appear to be racist, as such names refer to a particular civilization rather than an entire race of people. In this way, they are no different from other school nicknames such as Trojans and Spartans (like Aztecs, ancient peoples) or Fighting Irish and Flying Dutchmen (like Seminoles, nationalities)."

Compounding this duplicity, the conclusions in each section apparently contradict the intent of the denoted section. The result is that the two sections deliver a vague overall contribution, contrasting the expectation of a clear summary of each position. Yoodge (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of deletions

User (208.107.218.161) deleted the anti-mascot material from the "pro" sections on the basis of its being redundant and/or misplaced.

  • It is not redundant since they are specific rebuttals needed to balance the article.
  • If out of place, they should have been moved not deleted.

FriendlyFred (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User (208.107.218.161) response: Balance? The entire article, from intro to conclusion, is an argumentative paper against native mascots. I agree there is a balance problem, but its not in the direction you are thinking. The counterpoints in the "pro" section are redundant; the exact same points are covered, ad nauseum, in every other section of the article. Secondly, no rebuttals are posted in the "against" section; they are not necessary there, apparently. The public opinion polls section should be its own separate section since it includes a poll against mascots, and the issues raised about the validity of random sample polls in general are neutral and applicable to all polls, not just the ones whose findings support mascot use. As written it sends the message, "If I agree with the results, its valid; if I don't agree with the results, then the survey itself is invalid". The whole section smacks of bias. "FriendlyFred" has a major ax to grind on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The opening statement reads: Numerous civil rights, religious, educational, athletic, and academic organizations consider the use of native names or symbols by non-native teams to be a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping which should be eliminated. The anti-mascot sections proceed to present the statements of all of these groups, supported by reliable sources. There have been entire books, and many journal articles written on the subject. If there are equally reliable sources with anything else to say, I cannot find them. Anyone else is free to do so, but no one has. The sections outlining the steady decline in the number of teams with Native American mascots are history, not opinion, and also based upon reliable sources.
Public opinion surveys are almost the only pro-mascot statements published in reliable sources (not editorials or blogs). Academic experts have published critiques of these surveys in peer-reviewed journals, the very definition of being unbiased. However I did add a statement in the opening section that the general public is on the "pro" side in polls. However, during the past decades, there has been a steady decline indicating that in spite of general opinions, decision-makers agree with the experts and are anti-mascot.

FriendlyFred (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

While peer reviewed studies are more scientific than peer reviewed studies, when the public opinion polls are correctly conducted amongst Native American opinion, Native opinion should at least be considered equally important, and probably more so. The part in the intro that criticizes the focus on offensiveness rather than cultural appropriation is blatant cultural imperialism. Gtbob12 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

See last item on this FAQ for rule on "member(s) of Congress": [5]FriendlyFred (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

John Adams (drummer)

John Adams (drummer) is a baseball fan who brings a drum to every Cleveland Indians game. He's mentioned as part of a fan reaction to the issue in Cleveland. It's hard to deny that there's a connection: according to his own article, he has been nick-named "Big Chief Boom-Boom". Having said that, neither the source, nor the other article actually specifically mentions any mascot controversy or issue with racism. It seems like we either need to find a solid source explicitly spelling this out, or we need to remove it from this article for WP:BLP reasons. Linking him with this controversy without solid sources is not good, and simply mentioning his existence seems more confusing than anything else. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many sources that state that the problem with mascots includes the stereotypical behavior they engender from fans, including warpaint, dancing, and drumming. References to living persons that embody this stereotyping do not seem confusing to me, and I added the references to both John Adams and Chief Zee to this article. Perhaps the link to the latter is more obvious, since he is often referred to as the unofficial mascot of the Washington team.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing that it's problematic behavior. It's bizarre to me that his own article (a 'good' article, no less) fails to mention this at all, but it seems like that's the place to deal with it first, before adding it here without explanation. The sources that connect Adams' drumming to this issue are not currently in this article. This is a problem of original research. Implying that his behavior is connected to this issue needs specific sources. These sources should also be included in his article, as well, obviously. Chief Zee's article mentions the controversy, which makes his inclusion here a lot clearer. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for sources, but I'm having a hard time finding them. It doesn't help that "John Adams" is such a common name, and there's an unusually large amount of useless message-board blather as well. I'll keep looking. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there are no unfavorable news stories about this individual, since it would only be people inside the stadium witnessing his performance, although there are videos. I do not see merely stating a fact as being OR, but it is not that important to the article that this line remains; if no citation can be found it can be removed.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I found an editorial that makes the connection between Wahoo, redface, and drumming. Added the reference after restoring the anonymous deletion of the John Adams reference.FriendlyFred (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
At best, that's WP:SYNTH. The cite provided about Adams makes no mention of his bass drum being inspired by or related to Native American cultures. The editorial only mentions "beating a tom-tom" (not even a general "drum", a "tom-tom") briefly, and makes no mention of Adams. Your attempt to connect the two is based on an assumption that the concept of percussion instruments are so obviously related to Native Americans in the same way that feathered headdresses and tomahawks are that it doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out, and that's just not true. Most, if not all, cultures have drums and drumming.
Plus, it's implying something contentious (and negative) about a living person without a source to back it up – as neither of the two sources do – so it's a WP:BLP violation, too. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who listens to a video of John Adams drumming recognizes the Hollywood tom-tom inspiration for his performances. The nickname "Big Chief Boom-Boom" also establishes the connection between him and stereotyping of Native Americans. I feel sorry for living persons, including both Chief Zee and John Adams, who happen to embody the unconscious racist biases of many sports fans in America; but I could not ignore the obvious.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Restored the source that applies to fan behavior in general.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive this talk page?

This talk-page seems like a good candidate for setting up an archive. I would be happy to do that, or not, if anyone has a preference. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot I was going to do this. I manually archived about 50k to Talk:Native American mascot controversy/Archive 1. Hopefully this will make talk page navigation a little easier. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT CONCERNS

I came here looking for an article I could show a friend to represent the position of some in the Native American community that mascots distort the the image of Native Americans as a group. I am not Native American myself but have lived in Indian Country, subscribe to a number of Native American publications, and am familiar with the Native American studies curriculum at the University of New Mexico. It is not really my place to say whether this is a minority opinion, but I have well-founded reason to believe that the mascot controversy does not represent the ravings of some fringe or AIM group as some on this page appear to be trying to say. I have not spent much time on Wikipedia recently or I would flag the article. The only Native American publication is an expired link. I can't work on this now... actually, you know what, I think I *will* take this to NPOV just for funsies, while I am still an uninvolved editor, because a quick scan of this talk page makes me think maybe this article needs one. Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what your concerns with the article might be. The article cites no Native American publications? Native voices are represented in citations from peer-reviewed journals and mainstream publications. There is also the NCAI resolution. However the topic of the article is the public controversy, so the pro-mascot position is also represented. It is usually sports fans who cry "bias" because the latter position is under-represented and rebutted. (I would like to know about the expired link, so I can fix it.)FriendlyFred (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
IndianCountryToday. The publication is still there, and by the way was accepted by my Native American studies professor as a valid source for the Native American point of view, even at the graduate level. Plenty there about mascots, but that particular link does not work. Taking another look at the article. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I often read items in IndianCountryToday, and have added many references to Washington Redskins name controversy citing that source. If there are currently none here, it is because another source was used for the same material. The solution to your concerns are quite simple, this is Wikipedia, if your see something missing, add it.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional references

I have mainly been editing the related Redskins controversy, but have found many references that belong in this general article. I have begun to add them, beginning with a re-write of the opening section that clearly states the current scientific consensus on the issue. Giving anything close to equal weight to public opinion would be a distortion of the facts that an encyclopedia must present.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Applying NPOV guidelines to a controversial article is not easy. There must be a balance between the quality of the sources being cited. For me, after two years of reading books and journal articles by PhDs in Psychology, Sociology, and other relevant disciplines; and seeing the number of civil rights, religious, and educational organizations publishing resolutions and white papers calling for an end to Indian mascots, I cannot escape the obvious. The scientific consensus on this issue is that it is a form of racism. There have been hundreds of studies done that demonstrate the harm done by stereotyping of Native Americans. Public opinion polls are not a rebuttal to scientific studies; but instead demonstrate one of the harmful effects of stereotyping: the average American knows little about Native Americans but hold many misconceptions. But while people continue to support mascots in polls, individual schools continue to change them. The trend, as with many social issues, is toward the informed view in spite of what people may consciously express. A WP article should state the facts in the context of scientific consensus. It would be contrary to the principle of Due Weight to give serious mention to opinions which are easily rebutted by experts. However, since there are already claims of bias in this article, I will proceed incrementally towards the proper balance.

Don't know why there was a missing signature, but here it is: FriendlyFred (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Had to make many minor edits

...because the date formats in many citations were generating an error.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Blackhawks

I found something about the conspicuous absence of controversy around the Blackhawks and their logo. Maybe some of this article could be incorporated? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-19/news/ct-met-indian-mascots-20130619_1_american-indians-black-hawk-mascots -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Washington Redskins

The section on the Washington team needs so many updates and changes that I have drafted an almost a complete replacement here: User:FriendlyFred/sandbox#Draft:Washington_Redskins_section_in_Native_American_mascot_controversy. For such a large edit a request for comments seems reasonable, but I will only wait a day or two if there is no response. After I make the change, much of the material used in other sections referring to the Redskins will need to be revised also, and perhaps removed as redundant.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Syracuse Chiefs

This subsection was removed from the listing of Pro teams because it is no longer an illustration of the topic of Native mascots, and there is nothing to indicate its connection to the topic.FriendlyFred (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Added link to article which lists former teams, thinking of doing this for high schools also since this article only needs to illustrate the topic not maintain a duplicate of these lists.FriendlyFred (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_American_mascot_controversy/Archive_2&oldid=1173338620"