Jump to content

Talk:Native American mascot controversy/Archive 3

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

Inclusion of EMU incident

An incident where Eastern Michigan U. students demonstrated in 2015 that there remains an attachment to a mascot removed in 1991 is very relevant to the topic of this article, which is the public controversy regarding mascots. If this is not worthy of inclusion, then the topic is not worthy of being part of WP, and should be deleted.FriendlyFred (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • There may be some places where this article could use a trim, but in this specific instance I agree with FriendlyFred that the incident is worth including as an example of continued resistance, in some quarters, to the general trend to drop Native American mascots. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I retained the student objection and deleted the rest while retaining the reference. Although there are undoubtedly many examples of students objecting to eliminating these nicknames or mascots, they do not warrant inclusion as Wikipedia is "not everything". I agree with Arxiloxos that this article needs trimming as it has become bloated in the past few years. Sandcherry (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The change implied something the source did not support, which is hardly an improvement to the article. I have simply paraphrased the source, and do not understand why this cannot remain.FriendlyFred (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion from history section

I have restored material that was taken from an APA document that is a justification of that organization's 2005 Resolution on native mascots, and an article by two Native American scholars entitled "Stereotypes in sports, chaos in federal policy". I cannot imagine how a paragraph providing this historical context can be called "off-topic" unless the criteria is that the word mascot must appear in any sentence used.FriendlyFred (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

POV edits

The insistence upon a personal interpretation of what is trivial/off-topic becomes a POV unless supported. I have spent a great deal of time researching this topic and adding cited material to the article. I would welcome thoughtful collaboration, but am not willing to have anything deleted without discussion leading to a consensus.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The items that Sandcherry insists upon deleting or gutting:

  1. The two sentences in the History section that place the topic in historical context, the first taken from a document published by the American Psychological Association to explain that organization's 2005 resolution calling for the elimination of Native American mascots, images, and symbols in sports. The second is from an article by two Native American scholars in an article connecting mascots to the historic failures to respect treaties. How can this possibly be seen as off-topic? The topic is not trivial, and cannot be understood without this historical context.
  2. The same is true with regard to the section on opinion polls. Some of the criticisms of polls regarding mascots applies to all polls. A few words providing context are not off-topic.
  3. The citation of the EMU incident based upon a local news report: I find the mere fact that some student continue to identify an Hurons after 24 years very significant, however I cannot speculate upon the meaning of the incident. All that can be done within WP guidelines is summarize the facts as I have recently done. Perhaps those facts are too graphic for some, but I see no alternative.

FriendlyFred (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read "Ownership of articles".Sandcherry (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Does the above sound like claiming ownership? I am asking for discussion/collaboration/consensus rather than edit warring.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Being active in developing a page doesn't justify accusations of ownership.
Giving context in the history section seems entirely appropriate, and I'm not really seeing how it would be considered off-topic. This is a long, complicated article, so providing sourced context, which is central to the whole topic, seems useful and appropriate. The specific wording could stand to be adjusted for neutrality, but I don't think blanking is an improvement.
The information on sampling bias, however, seems like WP:SYNTH, as the Slate article on opinion surveys doesn't even mention Native Americans, much less mascots. In that case, linking to sampling bias or something would be more appropriate.
The Huron incident could probably be phrased a bit more concisely, but "some students continue to object to the change" is so vague it's basically euphemistic, and misses the point of the source.
Whatever happens, it would be better to talk about it or go to WP:RFC or something rather than edit war. But everyone already knows that, right? Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, you seem to agree with my points 90%. I have been editing this article for years with little substantive input from others. At this point 80% of the content was written by me. But rather than feeling ownership, I would welcome thoughtful collaboration. It is a complex topic, and I recognize the limits of working alone. There are always improvements that can be made. I have looked at the article again, and have made changes to clear away some real trivia, update items with recent news, and yesterday merging two sections on the NCAA that had redundancies, all things that Sandcherry could have done rather than deleting material that he decided, apparently upon a superficial reading, were trivial or off-topic. The Huron incident is shocking but significant, and I do not know how to include it other than directly from the source without either wp:OR or wp:weasel words. The problem with the polling section is that there are issues with polls that are apparently misunderstood by those that want to draw conclusions from mascot-specific polls. The Slate article was the most accessible source describing those issues: sampling bias due to low response rates and the switch to cellphones. Perhaps I can find another source that is related to the article topic, but it is likely to be academic and not so accessible.FriendlyFred (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Taking an academic source and summarizing it into a more accessible form seems like a great thing for a Wikipedia article to be doing. Sampling bias issues regarding phones are as old as phones ("As Maine goes, so goes Vermont") so the connection to this issue should be expressly spelled out by sources. It's not a big deal, but I don't think that the Slate source should be used here. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Independent review requested

I requested an independent review of this article by two neutral and experienced editors. It is hoped their review will be the basis for improvements to the article. Sandcherry (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What mechanism is being used for this request? (I have previously attempted to stimulate interest in the article by posting on discussion pages, to no avail.)FriendlyFred (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly why aren't FriendlyFred or I neutral? Nevermind, don't answer that. No disrespect to them, but picking two and only two other editors based your own assessment of their neutrality and experience seems like it's flirting with WP:CANVASSING a little. Since you haven't really bothered to respond to the active discussion on the talk page above, it seems premature, as well. If you want to actually propose edits rather than edit war, or make actionable suggestions, that would be welcome. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi - Fred posted on my talk page. Is this diff the only point of contention between editors here? I think surely some sort of mutually acceptable compromise can be hammered out. Neutralitytalk 03:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no contention, a consensus has been reached by the participants in this discussion.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplifying by coordinating content of related articles

Since I edit this article and two others with related content, I am making an effort to simplify things for me and the readers by placing detailed content in the appropriate place and replacing details with wikilinks.

For example:

False balance

The recent activity here has drawn me back after some time mainly editing another related article, and reading books on entirely different subjects. I also agree that this article needs a lot of work, but for entirely different reasons.

After almost three years of research and writing it is obvious to me that there is no controversy from a neural point of view, which means that this article is an example of WP:False balance. The opinions of sports fans, team owners and a tiny handful of (conservative) journalists, all sourced from newspapers, are placed upon equal footing with facts presented by dozens of PhDs published in peer-reviewed journals. Add to this the resolutions passed by the American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, and American Anthropology Association; it should be clear to anyone that there is as close to a unanimous scholarly consensus as any topic in the social sciences is likely to receive.

That consensus is that native mascots and the behaviors that surround them are an expression of harmful biases (prejudice) that perpetuate the stereotypical thinking upon which those biases are based. While the led section makes the statement that the academic point of view is in opposition to Native American mascots, the very existence of a "support" section is to me problematical in the same way that any "science denial" section would be in a scientific article. It implies that there is a debate between equally valid positions, which is not the case.

The alternative is to write an entirely new article using only unbiased references, an option I have considered. FriendlyFred (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Finished Phase I, reorganization of existing content. Separation of Perspectives (pros and cons) from Trends (real life details).FriendlyFred (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The changes look good, thank you. I hadn't really thought about it that way, but you're right, defense of Native mascots is in several ways a WP:FRINGE perspective. As such it makes sense to explain both positions only to the extent that they define the controversy.
It might be worth considering renaming the article. Native American sports mascots is currently a redirect here, and that seems to me like a good candidate. I'm not sure about that, but it's worth considering. It would be a more encompassing title, but it's also downplaying that this has been very controversial, both currently and historically. Grayfell (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You are conflating two different things, the controversy itself and the social science around the harm etc caused by the mascots. In the actual controversy of whether the mascots should stay or go the opinions of the people supporting the mascot would be of equal footing to those who do not based simply on how it is a major viewpoint on the subject (thus not false balance). However, when it comes to the science of issue, then scholarly sources are great. But this article is about (based on the name) the controversy surrounding the mascots, not the science of whether or not the mascots are good or bad. They are two related but distinct subjects. If you are not going to talk about the controversy by covering all the sides in their appropriate weight then you should move the article to a name that indicates it is just about the harm that such mascots cause. -DJSasso (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While I was tentatively positive on renaming the article, splitting the article seems like its asking for trouble. I don't think the science of the issue should be artificially separated from the controversy. The academic sources are covering the controversy and its effects, and there would be little scholarly attention if this weren't controversial. So splitting the article would leave one article about the academic discourse, and one about the popular and political debate? Maybe. It's been done for other controversies, but that seems like it's flirting with being a WP:POVFORK. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been thinking about either a rename or a split for some time as the article developed and the more reliable sources supporting academic and professional opinions overwhelmed the content. If the split were modeled on other controversies, the Global warming article is about the science but Global warming controversy is mostly about the science also, and while it gives "both sides" the POV is clearly in favor of the science, which is required to avoid POV forking. This article is about such a tiny controversy by comparison I do not see that such a split is warranted, and would leave the academic article orphaned, and likely under constant attack for not giving the other side. The recent reorganization of the content into perspectives rather than a simple pro/con was my solution to some of these issues. However the topic is controversial, so a title that does not say so is also problematical. A rename was discussed in 2013 at the top of this page, and it did not fly.
There seems to be a basic disagreement here about what false balance, and due and undue weight mean. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Creating an article giving equal coverage to those that see the harm based upon highly reliable sources and those that think mascots are harmless reported in newspapers is certainly a false balance, given that the latter are generally sports fans, players, and team owners. I think I have been a diligent and unbiased researcher, and have never found single academic source that does not support mascot change. A majority of the general public can be wrong about a topic, as they are with this one, in which case the experts cited, while a numerical minority, represent the NPOV.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Again you are saying the majority of the public can be wrong about a topic. But that isn't the point. This article based on its title is about the controversy itself. Thus there is no right and wrong, there is just describing the controversy itself. Thus all the major viewpoints must be covered, those of the native community, those of the community at large, and those of the teams so that an accurate picture of what the controversy is about can be seen. The science (or lack thereof considering the APA itself has said there is little scientific evidence) is a completely separate mater. And be aware that reliable sources are not considered to only be academic journals etc. Newspapers are considered reliable sources, thus they need to be equally considered when writing about topics depending on the context, if you are describing the science itself, then yes the journals are stronger, however, when talking about the controversy itself and describing the varying opinions on the topic they hold as much or more weight because they discuss the reality of the public opinion. You may very well be diligent, I am not questioning your work ethic or anything. But I think you are confusing the controversy itself with the thing the controversy is about. I can't really comment on the global warming articles because while it is also a controversy, it is a hard science which can easily be proved/disproved and the controversy surrounding the mascots is soft science based which is not provable in the same way and is thus more heavily opinion based than fact based. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia defers to verifiable expert opinions. The many sources here should be all the evidence you need that this is an academically addressable issue. If you don't believe that social sciences are relevant to social issues than your problem is with social sciences, not this article. Your statement that social sciences are "opinion based" is itself an opinion, an incredibly controversial one, and statements like that poison the well for future discussion. If you have specific newspaper sources you think should be used, or other specific changes you would like to see made, than maybe it's time to propose them. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying its not academically addressable, I was saying comparing this article to the global warming article is hard because they are two different types of science and because of that may need to be handled differently. My point about newspapers was in regards to the comment above that essentially stated all newspapers are bad and that only academic sources are valid. They aren't. Full stop. When writing about a controversy to leave out newspaper articles talking about the controversy, talking about any side of the controversy, or talking about the political aspects or what have you is problematic as they are very relevant and to do so ignores half of the controversy. As for poisoning the well...the continuous comments that the general public is wrong does that far more than anything I have said. Frankly my proposal is that this whole page needs to be blown up and redone. It is incredibly POV in that it completely trivializes at least three of the major camps in this controversy when it even bothers to mention them. Or the other option as you mentioned is to split the science from the political into two different articles. But as it stands this article is certainly not covering the controversy in a NPOV way. -DJSasso (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments about the general public's opinions of the use of Native American mascots are directly related to this article. Comments about the opinion-based nature of "soft" sciences are not relevant, and are outside of this topic. Looking at FriendlyFred's comments about newspapers, at no point do I see anything about newspapers being unusable. I interpret the comments to be saying, correctly, that the personal opinions of people with a financial interest and non-expert fans should not be presented as being equal to expert opinions. Expressing a preference for journals over newspapers is a far, far cry from "newspapers are bad". Again, what sources, newspaper or otherwise, would you like to see being used? Can you give a specific example? Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I referred to the other controversy articles as examples because they do cover all points of view, but are basically catalogs of why and how science deniers are wrong. Certainly climate science is easier to defend, but there should be no distinction between "hard" and "soft" science when making editorial decisions. As Grayfell points out, that would require editors to make decisions about the relative status of different fields of study, something we cannot do. (Scientists themselves may have opinions as to the relative status of their work, but they are not going to publish such opinions.) All sciences, whether physical or social, have schools of thought and theoretical disagreements. On WP, the only thing that editors can do is stick to the topic, and add content that reflects what the majority of experts on that specific topic have said in the most reliable sources. Can there be any question that on this topic, the expert view is currently reflected in the article? Can there be any doubt that any other point of view is based upon bias, the very same bias that is engendered by the stereotypes condemned? All of these other views have been mentioned here, but also rebutted by experts.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed?

A large number of "fact" tags were placed which include

  • Sentences that have citations
  • Simply incontrovertible facts not needing a citation
  • Sentences at the beginning of sections that summarize the cited material that follows, which improve readability
  • Sentences that linked to other articles which do (or should) contain citations (if missing, place the fact tag there)

Given the lack of discussion before making these edits, and their appearing to be an example of drive-by tagging, I am in the process of removing most of them.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

HS Redskins

A reorganization of the Redskins section under secondary schools in the US, adding subsections and removing the list of retired Redskins, which is also maintained in a separate list article. FriendlyFred (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Article size and splitting

A GA review of the Washington Redskins name controversy has resulted in a ~67% reduction of that article by aggressively applying Wikipedia:Summary style, condensing and splitting as needed. This article's size was mentioned in passing, and I would like to apply the same process if it improves readability and the likelihood that the average visitor would actually read the content rather than think WP:TL;DR. Splitting topics also makes it more likely that editors will not be intimidated by the complexity and work on maintaining and improving articles. I only wish someone had mentioned this before, rather than having the articles collect everything. I am an old-fashioned academic writer, so complexity and lots of citations are what I am accustomed to.

I have already split out Other Redskins sports teams which is an obvious sub-topic referenced here and in the other Redskins-related articles.

What is worthy of its own article? Is the entire section on Trends notable, or does it become a catalog of random public opinion with no NPOV? I have created a list article List of Washington Redskins name change advocates, would this be similar? FriendlyFred (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Split the NCAA section to its own article. FriendlyFred (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The next split would be from the Trends section. Perhaps one article for legal and administrative, another for schools? The separate articles could then explore the issues of free speech and "hostile learning environments" unique to these parts of the topic. Or a single article for all Trends, since the administrative includes school board action. There is little to say about the pro teams here since the two major controversies, Washington and Chief Wahoo have their own articles. FriendlyFred (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Native American mascot controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Bias

This article (or at least its introduction) is hugely biased towards the campaigners for renaming. 86.139.250.85 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


GA review

Since the related article Washington Redskins name controversy passed a GA review, I have wanted to improve this article. Its a bit long but I think it is worthy, and would like to stimulate interest in improvement. I began by removing detailed references to individual schools changing their mascots. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible split: The state law content of the Trends section could become an article entitled Native American mascot laws and regulations--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
A week without comment, performed the split.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Preparing article for review, checking references.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Trying to get article length down by further summarizing content contained in linked articles and creating one for the Chicago Blackhawks. Moving content from lead section, which was very long.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Native American mascot controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Native American mascot controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Native American mascot controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

Extended content
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Native American mascot controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


I will read the article over the next day or two and leave comments here. I generally split this into three sections. The first is related directly to the criteria and any major issues found will be located here. I must be satisfied with these for the article to pass. The second will mostly be general comments that I note while reading the article. It may include examples from previous sections, points I think can be clarified and even general musings. I encourage any discussion on these comments and am generally willing to change my mind or compromise on them if you can provide sufficient justification. The last section will be a source review, where I will look at random, and some not so random, sources to make sure they support what they are citing and aren't too closely paraphrased. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Yes this is a very long article. Was a good read though and I was kept my interest through most of it (although the trends section became a nit of a slog).
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose is generally excellent. Some queries in the comments section, but nothing major.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    No obvious problems here. Didn't really like the links jumping between sections much though.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Well and truly
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I guess this is one of the key issues. It is long, at 50 kB and 8066 word it is at the upper limit of WP:SIZERULE, but still within limits. The article seems to cover alot more than the title reflects, so maybe there is a better encompassing title that could be used. If you want it to be just about the Mascots you could quite easily cut the article down. I am not going to fail on size and although some of the details in the trends section (not sure that is a great header) could probably be summarised better it is not bad.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    It does favour a point of view on the issue, but I feel doing otherwise would create WP:FALSEBALANCE. There are a few minor points in my comments regarding some things said in wikipedias voice that might be better attributed.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    One main editor and no evidence of recent edit warring. The talk page shows some disagreement dating back a couple of years
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Images seem to check out
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    File:FedExField - Redskins Jaguars pregame field.jpg caption says it shows the logo, but it is mostly crowd and half the wording is cut off. I am not sure it is a great image to depict the logo.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

> My annotations in blue.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Title

  • The title says "Native American mascot controversy", but the article goes into just as much detail on names and logos.
    • The academic sources on the topic generally use this title, "mascot" being short for "names, logos, and mascots"

Lead

  • However, the greatest change has occurred in the trend by school and college teams that have retired Native American names and mascots at an increasing rate in recent decades. Found this a little awkward. What is the however in relation to? What time frame is covered by recent decades? Using change, trend and increasing rate together make what I think is a pretty straight forward point a little cumbersome. I am not even sure it fits in that paragraph as written as there are no previous mentions of change to make this one the greatest.
    • This summarizes the Trends section for me, but may be pushing the boundaries of speculation for WP without a ref. Commented out until I find one.
  • The issue is often discussed in the media only.... Could this sentence be split in two
    • Done
  • Some see a connection between using caricatures of Native Americans as sports mascots and their political and economic marginalization; resulting in decisions such as building the Dakota Access Pipeline being made while excluding Native Americans. Don't quite follow this. How does the first result in the second. Am I missing some context?
    • The cited source supports the connection between being trivialized as mascots and being politically powerless, using the pipeline as the most recent example. Perhaps more details are needed to provide context, but if lengthy should go in the body of the article. Reworded somewhat.
  • For example, in 2016 when one of the teams in the National College Prospects Hockey League (NCPHL) was announced as the Lake Erie Warriors with a caricature Mohawk logo[10] it was immediate changed to the Lake Erie Eagles. I feel specific examples would work better in the body instead of the lead as the lead is supposed to be a summary f the article.
    • Yes, this content moved to trends section.

History

  • Founded as the Boston Red Stockings, the team became the Braves for the first time in 1912 Might want to mention it is a football team here as I was a little confused when I read about the other Boston Braves further down. Also were there other times?
  • The Redskins in Washington, D.C. were originally also known as the Boston Braves when formed in 1932 Surely they weren't called the Boston Braves while in DC? DC is mentioned later anyway so might not be necessary here and is confusing for people who don't realise how much these teams move around.
  • After moving to the home of the Boston Red Sox Do you mean they were sharing Fenway Park with the Sox.
  • Thus, the use of Native American names and imagery by this team began before the hiring of William Henry Dietz as coach in 1933. Relevance of this? Also the previous sentence says they were named the redskins in 1933 so this statement seems a little contradictory.
  • As a non-American only slightly familiar with baseball I found following the history of the teams a little confusing. I think I got it in the end, but I did have to read it a few times. The confusion only consisted around the Braves/Redskins history (Indians was fine).
    • All the content on the former Boston teams (Braves, Redskins) has been re-written.

Viewpoints

  • On these stereotypes, the NCAI states these mascots, "slander, defame... This quote got a little lost on my read through. It doesn't help that it is quite long, but also the quotes within the quote play a part. Maybe it can be broken up or trimmed a bit.
    • The US Civil Rights Commission statement has been paraphrased rather than directly quoted. I worry about not including all the nuances and detail, but readability may be more important.
  • I notice you have some see alsos at the bottom of sections. Is there a reason for this? Convention is usually to put them just under the heading.
    • It has been my practice to place "main article" below the title and "see also/further" links after the content that the linked article expands upon
  • Five of the college teams originally listed by the NCAA as possibly "hostile and abusive" (see below) established relationships with specific tribes that allowed them to retain their names. We don't usually have links between articles, but this is a minor issue. I think this needs a reference. While I am sure it is referenced below, I would feel more comfortable having a reference next to a sentence that describes something as "hostile and abusive"
    • Changed to a general statement about agreements between teams and tribes supported by the NCAI policy.
  • Research also demonstrates the harm done to society by stereotyping of any kind. This is unclear to me. Is it a standalone statement (in which case it needs a ref) or is it referring to the following sentences?
    • Yes, reworded somewhat to make the connection clearer.
  • Should spell out acronyms first time they are used. I have found NCAA and NAACP so far.
  • The civil rights advisory opinion matches the source almost word-for-word.[1]
    • paraphrased
  • and team owner Daniel Snyder What team did he own? Was there a response?
  • by the owner of the Washington Redskins, Daniel Snyder There it is. I would move this up to the first mention of him.
    • Moved up.
  • ...which ignores the origins of the controversy in the protests by Native American individuals and groups cited above. Don't think this should be said in Wikipedias voice. Also dislike this internal more than the previous one as readers generally start at the top.
  • Many argue there is a double standard in Native Americans being the only racial group depicted in sports You sure about this? We have the Chiefs (rugby union) here (logo is a Maori Warrior[2] and mascot is a Maori rugby player[http://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/the-chiefs-mascot-performs-at-the-start-of-the-super-12-news-photo/55809159?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect) and New Zealand Warriors (similar logos and mascot). I see this is somewhat addressed below wiht ethnic groups (I was also thinking of the Celtics), but still find it too much f a blanket statement without a source directly backing it up. Also don't like the use of many either without qualifiers. How many is many?
    • Reworded; will try to find ref.
  • The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights call for an end to the use of Native American mascots cited above Another internal link. One or two maybe, but there are probably too many.
    • Replaces link with ref.
  • ...but when additional questions were asked also have found that the same respondents said "redskin" is not an appropriate term for Native Americans Could we have the percentage that agreed with this?
  • ...states that both SI and Annenberg's samples of... First mention of Annenberg. What was her poll?
    • Pulled details from linked article on polls.
  • The documents most often cited to justifying the changes cited below... Awkward with two mentions of "cited" and more self referencing.
    • Reworded
  • Changes made by schools and universities became more frequent in the 1990s... unreferenced
    • Not essential, so I removed it. Since the article is so long, is readability improved by such unreferenced summary statements at the beginning of sections, or is this only allowed in the article lead?
  • Statewide laws or school board decisions have passed... What are these laws? I am assuming they are for limiting or outlawing the use of Native American mascots, but it should probably say.
    • added "...regarding team names and mascots.."
  • The Wisconsin law passed... What law passed?
    • Added details on laws
  • There was discussion about the "Indians" name at El Reno High School, El Reno, Oklahoma when a Native American student was not allowed to wear a beaded mortarboard at graduation Whats a beaded mortarboard? I could noy find a link in wikipedia. Why is it significant?
    • Added wikilink to Square academic cap. Shows the irony of non-natives calling themselves Indians but not allowing an actual Native to use Indian beadwork to decorate a graduation cap.
  • Why is Arapahoe High School not under the United States sub heading?
    • Moved content
  • Niigaan Sinclair (Anishinaabe), a writer and assistant professor at the University of Manitoba, applauded the decision It doesn't actually say what the decision was. I am assuming it is not the decision to file a complaint?
  • The team was changed to the "Nepean Eagles", chosen from 70 suggestions submitted Moving this up would solve my previous issue.
    • Moved
  • The school officials state that they will have meetings and gather public opinions before making a decision Are they still deciding?
    • Three years with no further news, perhaps this can be removed
  • The symbol of the Stanford Band is the "Stanford Tree, but it is not a mascot." How is this relevant?
    • Must have been in the article since before my time, removed
  • Suzan Shown Harjo says the Blackhawks have escaped the scrutiny given to other teams Who is she?
    • Is the wikilink to her article insufficient?
  • who are few in the Edmonton area Do you mean that there are not many Inuits in Edmonton? Sentence read a little awkwardly
    • Moved content to an existing section in the team article.
  • Team owner Daniel Snyder sent an open letter to fans... Snyder was mentioned earlier and this feels very similar. Also you probably only need to link him and mention that he owns the redskins the first time.
    • I will write a summary of support for the Redskins that does not duplicate content.

Other

  • NDSU fans also wear offensive T-shirts Do you mean to imply that all fans do this?
    • No, it is just an example of rival fan behavior.
  • Might need some cites for "Teams outside America"
    • Difficult, since they are in German.
  • Some context missing from some "see also" entries
  • It would also be nice to have some more info on where the external links lead
    • Many of the external links where added by other editors, and appear to be off-topic, so I removed them.

Reference check

To come. AIRcorn (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Editor comments

The above is welcome editorial assistance that I had hoped for. I have been contributing to this article for ten years, and have been immersed in the extensive literature on the topic, and have made assumptions about the general knowledge the typical reader might have. It has not been seen with fresh eyes for some time, and perhaps never with this thoroughness. I will address the points above over the next few days.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have decided it will be easier to follow and verify if I make inline annotations to the review comments above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Other edits

I realized that the lead contained content on cultural appropriation that was not addressed in the article, so I moved that paragraph to the appropriate section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Final comments

  • The further reading link to "List of secondary school sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples" is labelled "List of schools". I understand why you didn't use the full name, but maybe there is a compromise that gives a little bit more detail on where it leads. AIRcorn (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Finished a second read trough and the prose is excellent. AIRcorn (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just want to make a comment on the lead. It may read a little opinionated if taken alone, but everything is supported in the body and it provides a nice summary of a long article.

AIRcorn (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

    • Re:"List of schools", changed to "List of secondary schools using Native American names or mascots"
    • Due and undue weight is a tricky balance when the peer-reviewed academic sources are all on one side of a controversy and mostly biased opinion (sports fans, team owners, etc.) is on the other. The current balance, giving the latter their say in the lead with only mild rebuttal, has stood for some time.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Life got in the way a bit. My comment on the lead was merely to acknowledge that I am happy with the neutrality of it, even though it might appear to some as biased. I am very familiar with the trickiness of balancing controversial topics as I am a major editor in one myself. If anyone was to challenge the good aspect of this article over NPOV I wanted it clear that I had considered it when reviewing. Anyway this article is excellent and deserves to be called a "Good Article". Passing. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Native American mascot controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Swapping of content

I removed the content here regarding the "Washington Redhawks", which had no subsequent effect, and replaced it with a new statement by the NAACP.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Cite Templates

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

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

Citing an opinion

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

Thanks to User:CorbieVreccan for going back to the source to clarify rather than merely delete.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
How does a marketing background qualify this expert to opine on the right or wrong side of history? Sandcherry (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
A financial consultant is quoted in the financial section about the historical financial impact of racially- and culturally-insensitive mascots. By comparing past branding mistakes (mistakes because the companies lost money) to current ones, they are delineating a pattern and making a prediction based on historical precedent. It's clear if you read the source. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "wrong side of history" implies no expertise beyond the particular field being addressed. It is merely a way of saying something is out-of-date, sending a different message, certainly something a marketing expert knows about. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The section was revised to retain the marketing analyst's opinion and remove the nonspecific "wrong side of history" cliché. Sandcherry (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Split proposed

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

I Don't Appreciate Erasing Good Edits

Andrew wasn't even using "speculation" and was using timeline statistics on how close the season is and how it hurts the name change possibility for this year.[3] Head Ron Rivera is even quoted in the Washington Post article which acknowledged a lack of communication with the Native American petitioners as stating the Redskins "wanted to continue “honoring and supporting Native Americans and our Military.”[4] At times, defeat is hard to accept, but we all have to suck it up in order to get through life.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

In my revert, I was using speculation in the specific meaning of predicting the future. No matter the expertise or reliability of the source, WP should not include anything about events that have not yet occurred. This is a GA, and already too large, so it does not need to include everything that will be mentioned in the coming months just because such predictions are the bread and butter of sports commentators. That a "review of the name" will be undertaken is a fact, its timeline and likely results are not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If I needed a reason to follow the content guidelines stated above, it came in the form of an NBC report based upon a blog post based on a tweet from someone claiming inside information on the names being considered.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Trimming excesses

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

Making progress towards the goal of ~125K.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The "page size" tool shows the article as having a "Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8530 words) 'readable prose size'".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Despite a history of using Native American mascots, arrows, and even the Tomahawk Chop, the team was actually named for "Chief" Bartle.[5][6] What the Chiefs name less controversial is the fact that Bartle was also a civil rights champion who oversaw desegregation in Kansas City.[7] The Native American stuff was clearly added over time.Mancalledsting (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The role of Bartle in the Chiefs naming was clear before the recent edits. I have done the split which I proposed in April, so its now a moot point anyway.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Cleanup of KC Chiefs section: there were four naked references which I converted to citation formats. In the process, it became clear that they said the same thing, or otherwise included details not needed in the summary of the team.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead Evaluation

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

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

I appreciate anyone taking an interest in this article. I have always followed the guideline WP:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, which states that when summarizing information in the body of the article that has citations, there is no need to repeat them in the lead unless the reader is likely to question them. The lead has remained as it is since the GA review, which mainly focused on its establishing notability and neutrality, rather than a preview of particular content. Do you have any specific suggestions for rewording?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@DylanElder: When I responded, I did not know that you are an undergraduate doing an assignment, so my response reflects my assuming Good Faith. While anyone may make contributions, it would be best if students work on C class articles, as the assignment instructions stated.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_American_mascot_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=1173370102"