Jump to content

Talk:Washington Commanders/Archive 1

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

Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Obsolescence of "redskin" as racial slur

Old text said the term is obsolete as a slur. There was no support for this. I checked several dictionaries. Only one said the term is "obsoltete," and another said "old fashioned." Others made no mention of this alleged obsolescence. All of them said this term is either offensive or obscene. Furthermore, old text said the term "redskin" now means simply a member of the Washington professional football team. Of all the dictionaries I checked, not a single one made a mention of the trademark used by the Washington team. Therefore I removed this text. Massysett 20:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have heard many arguments that the football team and the city that hosts it do regard the term as a positive connotation and not a negative one. However, that does not make it "obsolete". - Tεxτurε 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. It's not obsolete as a slur, it's obsolete as a word. When have you ever heard anyone call a Native American a "redskin"? It's as obsolete as "darkie" for an African-American. That doesn't make it any less of a racial slur, it's just not used anymore. Wahkeenah 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of obsolescence are you talking about? Heck, there's an article about the Society for the Prevention of Calling Sleeping Car Porters "George" even though it hasn't been in use for decades. The word still exists and has a history. You can't expect the groups affected to forget the history. What if a team was named "darkie"? Do you think that would be ignored? - Tεxτurε 15:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know that "George" group still existed. I say again, the only time you ever heard the term "Redskin" nowadays is in reference to the football team, not to Native Americans. Wahkeenah 18:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that the term "Redskin" isn't offensive, or that it should be ignored. But I think that this is a separate issue from the word's contemporary usage, and I think Wahkeenah is right that the term is a pretty obsolete or archaic one. john k 19:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

1982 NFC Championship Game

Sunday's game (35-7) made me think...

Somebody, probably somebody with more knowledge than me (and a better keyboard than I have access to right now) should add something about that ´82 NFC championship game where the Hogs started calling out the plays during the snap count ("Randy White, we're running at you!"). Seriously, is there a better Skins game that any of you remember? That's about the baddest football story I have ever heard of. That's an important part of Skins history.

Fan Chant!

This is Alakzam! As you can see, I displayed what the Redskins like to do during Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll (Part Two). From watching the Redskins play at home, that's what I heard. I'll understand if you find this unsuitable.

Suitability isn't relevant, but notability is, and probably better than half the professional sports venues in the USA have fans augmenting the chant this way. It's certainly not a Redskins tradition. VT hawkeyetalk to me 07:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me just chime in to note I've only noticed it at the last two home games, so it seems to fall short of a tradition J1729 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Rivalry

I have started an article on the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry. Please help me make it the most detailed site on the web of this amazing rivalry. And lets see if we can put something in this article as well about it. I'm kinda new on Wikipedia, but I'm a diehard Skins fan! Jwalte04 16:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated history

Much of the information in the history section also appears in a separate article, History of the Washington Redskins. Either the separate article should be merged, or else the history section here should be mostly removed and replaced by a "see also" or "main article" link. I'm not sure which is the preferred style for NFL team articles, so I'm not taking any action for now. Dsreyn 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Newark Tornadoes Reference

Most sources I can find don't reference Marshall in relation to the Tornadoes. Infact, a cursory Google search mostly led back to Wikipedia (or Wikipedia entries repurposed on other sites). This is the best I could find so far, but I don't think it's good enough: http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/wasbos/bosskins.html --72.73.25.176 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Riggins-- then-longest run from scrimmage in Super Bowl history (43 yards).

Larry Csonka had a 49-yard run in Super Bowl VII

Tom Matte had a 58-yard run in Super Bowl III 65tosspowertrap 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Verification on name

"In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian."

Can someone verify this? I think that has been debunked, but I'm not sure. I thought I remembered hearing that he either wasn't American Indian or that that wasn't the reason the team was named what it was named.

I'm pretty sure that should be deleted.

From the entry on Redskin:
The name "Redskins" would later be used for a NFL football team. The team was originally known as the Boston Braves, but changed to the Boston Redskins when they left Braves field for Fenway Park. The name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, whose mother was Sioux. In 1937 the team moved to Washington, D.C. and became the Washington Redskins. In the decades following the move to Washington, the team's owner George Preston Marshall was a controversial figure who refused to allow black players onto his team until 1962. (Source: Redskins Book, Washingtonpost.com.)

How exactly does one use a page link as citing something, when it has absolutely no mention of said thing whatsoever? The link citing Dietz's Sioux history or lack thereof, has nothing at all about it. I find this stuff on here on different pages quite regularly.

My guess is that the blog on that link once had something about it, but if it's still there, it's hidden somewhere. However, I also think that the alleged connection of "Redskins" to Dietz is retrofitting by historians, either purposefully, or possibly ignorant of the fact that the team was initially named for the Boston Braves. Thus, I have downplayed that unsourced and possible spurious theory about Dietz. It's also worth noting that Marshall obviously had racist tendencies, having been the last NFL owner to hire a black player, so he would have had no qualms at all about calling a team "Redskins". I also realize that he was a product of his times, when "redskin" was a fairly widely-used insult. I suspect this retrofitting might even be deliberate, as Marshall has been dead for over 35 years. They can't use him as an excuse for why they keep this nickname, so they have this convenient other theory. It might have some basis in fact (teams featuring Native American players and coaches were sometimes called "Indians"), but at the moment the evidence is not there, at least not in the article. Wahkeenah 20:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Redskins license plates

I noticed that Virginia issues license plates boosting the Washington Redskins. I've uploaded my own Redskins plate to Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate for inclusion in the article? A link to it is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Redskinsplate.jpg

Thanks for your feedback in advance. Jamehec 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism needs removing

5 separate edits of vandalisim, plus 2 edits that look like attempts to correct the problem. Is there anyway to revert to a prior version (7 back) without having to undo each separately? Darkson 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that can be done from the history page. Let me take a shot. JaderVason 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit late, it's already been done. ;) Darkson 01:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some other ones. I think they are all fixed now. A single reversion to a reliable version would have been easier. Wahkeenah 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

May I Present...

Tell me what you think... List of Washington Redskins players - Jwalte04 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten?

I added all the Redskin "Not To Be Forgotten" uniform numbers and dates of play (check - they should be accurate) as well as quite a few of the players. How about some old-time fans (ca. 1970's) adding to that? JamesMadison 08:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC) I think that's a really good idea.

Same here. I may do so with some others. WAVY 10 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like original research. But it's only football, not the Magna Carta. Wahkeenah 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Redskin Logo Questions

1982 Redskin Logo: What's the difference between the 1982 logo and the current one (introduced in '72) other than the feathers of the '82 edition are curled? WAVY 10 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1970-71 Redskin Logo: How come the "R" logo is not displayed?

uniform

I thought that Redskins wear their golden jersey at home and the white jesrsey away. Elfalem 23:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Redskins never had a golden jersey in their history. However they did have golden pants. Game day jersies in the NFL are determined by the home team. For instance, if the Redskins were playing the 49ers in San Fransisco, and the 49ers chose to wear their Cardinal Red jersies, the Redskins would wear their White jersies. If the 49ers choose to wear their White jersies, the Redskins would wear their Burgundy jersies.

The Washington Redskins are one of the few teams that predominanty wear their white jersies at home due in part of their head coach, Joe Gibbs. This was not always the case. In recent times, before Joe Gibb's return, the Redskins have played in their burgundy jersies at home during the Schottenheimer and Spurrier era.

Perhaps someone should add that the Texans also often wear white at home? ChemWeapon 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be added that only three teams wear white at home: the skins, and those two detestable teams from texas.

Actually, the Texans traditionally are one of those teams that only wear their white jerseys at home during the first half of the season. So far in 2006, they only wore white for their home games against PHI (Sep 10), WAS (Sep 24), and MIA (Oct 1). They wore their alternate red jerseys against JAX (Oct 22), and blue against BUF (Nov 19). If they continue with their short tradition, they will wear blue in their last 3 home games (of course, I am writing this before their game against TEN kicks off in a few hours). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In the logos, shouldn't we include and mention the R in the circle visible here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/24/sports/24giants.1.600.jpg Sylvain1972 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed ridiculous request for citation

Do we really need a cite for the fact that "attempts to force a name change have been unsuccessful". It seems pretty clear to me. On Thermonuclear War 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the request for citation was for the fact that some were forcing a name change? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It makes a lot more sense in the location you used. Good call. 1995hoo 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Washington Redskins 1000 reverse.png

File:Washington Redskins 1000 reverse.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Washington Redskins 1000 spear.png

File:Washington Redskins 1000 spear.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Washington Redskins 1000.png

File:Washington Redskins 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Uniform-RSkins.PNG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

tight ends are hogs

tight ends are not "honorary hogs". They block many more plays than they run routes. ONly nitwit fans who are pass-happy do not realize this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.130.94 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1983 Redskins pictures

Here are a couple of pictures of a few Redskins players taken in 1983. All are licensed as CC-BY, which makes them suitable to use on Wikipedia. I would have uploaded the pictures myself, but I don't know who these players are -- can anyone identify them? BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


FedEx Ring of Fame

Does anybody have a list (or can someone who attends Redskins home games compile a list) of the individuals honored in the "Ring of Fame" at FedEx Field? The article references the Washington Hall of Stars, which is located at RFK Stadium (with another version hanging on one of the garages at Nationals Park). I remember reading back in 1997 that Jack Kent Cooke wanted to take the Hall of Stars to the new stadium but that the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission shot him down. Accordingly, FedEx has a separate set of signs honoring solely Redskins (whereas the Hall of Stars honors people from all areas of sport, including, for example, the Capitals' Rod Langway). I don't have a citation for the article I saw mentioning Cooke's effort to move the signs, so I haven't added anything to this article explaining the situation.

Unfortunately, I think a fair number of people have become confused when they read this article, notwithstanding the clear reference to the Hall of Stars being at RFK Stadium, because they keep incorrectly adding Sean Taylor's name. I understand their intent, as he was added to the FedEx Field Ring of Fame, but their revisions are wrong and I've been reverting them. I finally put in a non-displaying comment that hopefully might help, but I think a better long-term solution is to include a list of the individuals honored in the newer Ring of Fame. I'm reluctant to include anything about it unless and until we have a full list, however; I've searched Redskins.com and I ran a Google search, but I haven't found any such list. I envision a section below the current Hall of Stars section titled "FedEx Field Ring of Fame" that says something like "When the Redskins moved out of RFK Stadium, the signs commemorating the Washington Hall of Stars were left behind and the team began a new tradition of honoring Redskins greats via the 'Ring of Fame,' a set of signs on the upper level facade at FedEx Field. Unlike the Hall of Stars, which honors historical greats from all sports, the Ring of Fame is limited to honoring Redskins greats. The following is a list of members of the Ring of Fame: (followed by a list)"

Can anyone help? 1995hoo (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1987-88 Season

Is it appropriate to mention in the article that the Washington Redskins were the only team during the 1987 players' strike not to have a single team member cross the picket line? After all, the 2000 movie "the Replacements" was loosely based on the Redskins. Signof4, 12 January 2007

Updated History

I updated the history to reflect the 2008 Season. Does anyone want me to improve the 2006 information as well? OriolesMagic, 1 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Tie Games

I was updating the overall record against the Rams and noticed that the winning percentage was considerably off. I then looked and noticed that it was the same for all the teams that the Redskins have had ties with in the past. I don't know if it was just because they had not been updated in quite some time or if it was because there is confusion as to how to calculate winning percentages when ties are involved. The NFL, as most leagues, counts ties as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss. For example, the Atlanta Falcons: 14-5-1 means 14.5/20=.725 not .737 which ignores the tie. Also, the Cleveland Browns was listed as 10-33-1 with a winning% of .303. Even ignoring the tie, the percentage would have been .233, so where the .303 came from I have no idea, but I fixed it and included the tie for .239. Superman7515 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vinny Cerrato IS NOT THE GENERAL MANAGER

People constantly edit the infobox on this article to name Vinny Cerrato as the general manager. He's not. His actual title is Vice President of Football Operations. The Redskins have no general manager at the moment, and this fact is amply demonstrated by the reports in the past week that Joe Gibbs might return to the Redskins as a consultant in charge of hiring both a general manager and a new head coach. There have been umpteen stories about it and I can't begin to link them all, but here's one: [1]. Given that NONE of the articles has suggested that Dan Snyder might fire Cerrato, and given that everyone knows that there appears to be no chance that Snyder would do so, it's apparent that Cerrato is not the general manager. Note, as well, that nobody in the DC-area media ever refers to Cerrato as general manager. Surely we can all agree that the DC-area media are best-positioned of any reporters to know his status, right?

I will continue to remove any references to Cerrato as GM given these FACTS. 1995hoo (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Season Histories

Why does the Redskins main page show their season records when there is already a dedicated season by season record page. Most other NFL team pages only have the link to the dedicated season by season page.Finalnight (talk) redskins rule!!!!!!-harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.232.195 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

franchise history article info to History of the Washington Redskins

This article is awfully long, I edited some of this info, but I think more should be moved to the history article.--Levineps (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Franchise Downturn

This section is redundant and seems to be full of personal Bias. As all of the material is covered in other areas of the page, I'm going to eliminate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.249.152 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Snyder's Ownership

In this section, It describes Chris Samuels and LaVar Arrington as future hall of famers. Samuels very well could make the hall one day, but a Malcontent like Arrington is extremely unlikely to make it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.249.152 (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Marching Band vs. Baltimore

I removed much of the information comparing the Skins' band with the Baltimore one. There was some mistaken information about the history of the Baltimore band. The Ravens didn't revive the band; it existed continuously. The Redskins band may predate the Colts franchise, but the Colts band predates the Colts franchise. It's an interesting history -- see http://www.ravensband.org/history.html . But it probably belongs on a Baltimore page, hon. J1729 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Never-the-less, the Redskins' Band predates the Ravens/Colts' band by 10 years. I don't know what you deleted, but it seems worth making a comparison of some sort. --72.73.25.176 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I know this discussion is ancient history. But I read the article's lede for the first time today, and thought that the line about Baltimore's band was out of place. The Redskins' band and "Hail to the Redskins" are themselves notable. It's even further notable that the band was the first of its kind in the NFL, and that "Hail" is the only fight song. But to give an entire sentence of the lede to the Ravens' also-notable band doesn't make sense. That note I think belongs on the Ravens page; or, on a separate page or section on a page about NFL bands. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Franchise History Section Numbering Needs Cleanup

Currently, there are two sections under Franchise History that list dates through present. Section 1.4 is entitled "Franchise downturn 1993 - present", and Section 1.7 entitled "Daniel Snyder becomes owner (1999–present)". Also, arguably section 1.11 "Arrival of Mike Shanahan" could also be a section that runs through present. Why do the subsections contained with in these not show up as sections 1.4.1, 1.7.1, or 1.11.1 etc. in he contents summary at the top of the page? Other team pages (such as the division rival from NY who shall not be named) display subsections as seperate numbered entries in the contents section. Does anyone know how the History section can be cleaned up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.11.197 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This term is non neutral. Unless an RS uses it in context, it doesn't belong in the article. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest the section be called "Coaching Changes (2001-2003)" or something similar. Although news many news stories have used the term "Carousel", it doesn't matter as much as putting something there that will make this mirror all the other Franchise History sections; with a brief description followed by dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.11.197 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest "Spurrier/Schotenhimer (2001-2003)". Robiskie was only an interim coach, and he doesnt figure prominently in that era.
I like the approach. I think "Schottenheimer/Spurrier" (to keep with chronological order). Thoughts on adding the word "tenures" (plural) to allude to the fact that they were two different head coaches? Do you agree with "Schottenheimer/Spurrier tenures (2001-2003)"  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.11.197 (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks.Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial retired numbers

For the 2008 season, Linebacker Albert Fincher is wearing 51. Should we note this? Also, I have heard rumors that 21 has been added to this list, but that is mostly unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBoCTiberius (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

...and now Robert Henson is 51. Time to take it off the list, perhaps. --rbrwr± 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have heard from the official Redskins blog that 21 is out of circulation and 27 was also unoficially retired for Ken Houston, and that Fred Smoot had to get permission to wear 27. Is this source reliable? 173.51.128.50 (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the naming controversy section as non-NPOV; as written it clearly attempts to present as fact the writer's POV over the Redskins name. I'm copying it here before deleting because some of it could be used in an NPOV manner in the controversy article.

While this particular case is undecided, the problem with Indian names and images usage by sports teams has been recognized and documented. The US Civil Rights Commission[1] called for and end of such usage in 2001, and the NCAA made recommendations based upon similar logic in 2005. The State of Oregon [2] banned American Indian mascots in 2012. The problem is not merely the official image of the team, but the behavior of fans that results: non-Indian people wearing warpaint, feathers, etc.; doing chants and dances that caricature a culture that is not their own.[3] The harm done was recognized by the American Psychological Association in 2005, and has been documented by studies that show that it harms non-Indians by teaching young people that such mockery is acceptable, and harms Indians by lowering their self-esteem and identification with their cultural heritage; and makes it difficult for true representations of that culture to be communicated because the Hollywood stereotypes are so visible.[4]

--RBBrittain (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting it doesn't seem like the right move. It's a valid point that adds context (and some info to balance out the paragraphs that talk about how nobody cares about the name) and is important to the discussion. You could rewrite it pretty easily by making the tone more neutral and adding "citation needed" in a couple places.
--Matereloah (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Schottenheimer/Spurrier tenures (2001-2003) Picture

I don't know what happened to the picture in this section, but I have no idea how to fix that.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Redskins uniform combos.

Who decides whether or not the Redskins wear white at home games now? Daniel Snyder or whoever's coaching the Redskins? Mr. Brain (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The players decide together, probably the captains make the final call with getting input from the rest of the team, and I am sure the captains and coaches both consult and decide, Snyder has nothing to do with it unless it is a special circumstance like when they wear their throwback jerseys.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

A IP vandalized the page 3:55 18 sept. I reverted to the last good version, but I'm not sure how to warn the user about his nonsense disruptive edits (changing all instances of 'Redskins' to 'Darkies', 'Skins' to 'Coons', etc... Moss Ryder (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the only edit made by that IP address. I'm not sure a warning would do much good (if the user even sees it—if it's a shared IP address, he may not). Most likely it's just a drive-by prank by some kid with nothing better to do. 1995hoo (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Native American mascot controversy

This article addresses this topic. There is a separate orphan and deadend article Washington Redskins Mascot Controversy. I would submit that the easiest way to address is to merge the deadend article into this article.

Cje (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose...to an extent Although the article itself needs some cleaning up, it is sourced and there is more than enough information to do an entire article on this. However, there is already an existing article on the Native American mascot controversy that covers the entire issue. To be honest, the nickname is the only thing controversial with the team--look at Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians and the "Tomahawk chop" of the Atlanta Braves. Both of those teams have arguably done more racism towards Native Americans than the Redskins. Now if we are talking about African Americans, safe to say the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons leads the way. For now, though, I would keep a separate article. Jgera5 (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the full merge giving it a section of its own rather than a mere footnote uniforms and logos, but added only one paragraph to put this controversy into the larger context of efforts to ban all Indian mascots and images.FigureArtist (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The section on the name controversy dissipates into legalese. Maybe that is the best way to leave the matter. Rammer (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

2013/2014 uniforms

The current picture for the uniforms is outdated. The Redskins removed the red neck border starting for the 2013 season. I'm confused by image rights on Wikipedia, so I'm not even sure if I have the privileges to change it (in Photoshop or something) and then reupload it. Dissident93 23:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

BRD for controversy section

Chahtaohoyo has recently made a bold edit see here. Opening this section to discuss it. In my opinion, it's a bit WP:UNDUE. The entire section can be summed up with the first sentence "Some notable NFL insiders have begun voicing their opinions on the team name" and incorporated into the rest of the section. Honestly the whole section needs trimming as WP:UNDUE. Likely got bulked up with WP:RECENTISM edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been condensed to a single sentence & integrated into the other text, though the original edit added more context to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chahtaohoyo (talk • contribs)

Fair use or not?

This just in: the Redskins trademark has been revoked. Can anyone with expertise on the fair use issue kindly explore what this might mean for the use of Redskins images on this article? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you read the news article they will appeal the decision and they retain copyright privileges during the appeals process. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Trademarks are totally separate and independent from copyrights. Although the trademark status may eventually change, copyrights will not. The logo will most likely still be under copyright, non-free usage. See also Wikipedia:Restricted materials. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Also note that there is a separate United States Copyright Office that handles copyrights in the U.S. But that is optional. While copyright in the U.S. automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, the option to register with the Copyright Office puts the copyright holder in a better position to litigate. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my error but the underlying point is still the same: nothing has changed. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, apologies for my previous convoluted comments. Nothing has changed. The logos will still be under copyright and non-free, and thus must still be used under fair use. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Should this article be moved to Washington NFL team? The USPTO has ruled that they do not have a right to the trademark. Or should we wait until all appeals are exhausted? The title policy doesn't care that the name is offensive, but does ask that it be neutral. Which name accomplishes that better? Both are supported by reliable sources; "Redskins" currently has the majority, though there is a slow trend away from it. Matchups 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Matchups Nope. It's still using the name and still have TM over it while appeals play out. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if they lose all the appeals, they can still keep using the name if they want to. (And as long as they do, it should continue to be the article title). What the trademark does is give them exclusive rights to the name; without the trademark, anybody is allowed to sell Redskins merchandise and the team stands to lose lots of licensing fees. --ABehrens (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

American Indian vs Native American

A few IP editors have been changing American Indian to Native American but so far have not discussed the changes. I agree with the edits but wanted to start a discussion and develop consensus on the issue. In general, Native American appears the preferred and predominant term. Just compare American Indian (disambiguation) to Native Americans. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Both terms are acceptable and often used interchangeably. A 1995 census survey found that 50 percent of American Indians preferred that term over Native American, it can be found here Native American name controversy. But, that was 20 years ago. If multiple editors want to change it, I don't see a problem doing so. Dkspartan1 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Poking around Google seems to suggest that Native American is the predominantly used term. Perhaps we should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America? I'll post something there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
First, Indian American refers to people whose heritage is from India who live in the United States, so that's completely irrelevant. "American Indian" and "Native American" are terms that mean two different things. "American Indians" are the Indigenous peoples of the Americas who are not Métis, Inuit, Aleut, or Yupik—so a linguistically-, genetically-, and culturally-related group of peoples spanning Canada to Chile. "Native Americans," especially here on Wikipedia, refers to Indigenous peoples of the United States—US American Indians and Alaska Natives (and occasionally Native Hawaiians). Which concept are you trying to describe? -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Uyvsdi Thanks for the clarification. I've corrected the section header here. I believe that the article would mean all Indigenous peoples, but honestly am not sure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The derogatory term doesn't really apply to Indigenous peoples of Asia, Africa, and Australia, so you might want to stick with Indigenous peoples of the Americas. -01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Pardon, I meant all Indigenous people of the Americas. However that term is a bit long for use in the article. If I understand you correctly, "Native American" would be an equivalent term whereas "American Indian" refers to a subset of Native Americans. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the point made by Dkspartan1 up above, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian, which opened in 2004, specifically uses the term "American Indian" precisely because the Smithsonian's polling of Indian tribes indicated an overwhelming majority of them prefer that term. I think the more compelling argument for changing the article text to use "Native American" would be if Wikipedia's manual of style called for that term, although I think it's highly doubtful there is any such guidance precisely because there is no universally-accepted term (consider the Canadian use of "First Nations," for example, which would obviously be inappropriate in an article about a US-based sports team). In general I am wary of arguments that there is one particular "proper" or "accepted" term. It always makes me think of the way public school teachers in the US today insist on the term "Asian" as the only acceptable term for people from East Asia (e.g., China, Japan, Korea) even though by using it that way they exclude huge portions of Asia (consider, for example, that Alexander Semin is Asian but does not look like the class of people as whom the prescriptivists apply that word). Ultimately I see no reason why both terms cannot be used alternately or interchangeably in the particular context of the Washington Redskins' name. There's no doubt that a lot of kids who grew up in the past 20 years have had "Native American" beaten into them so much that any other term will sound strange to them, though! 1995hoo (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(1) Got a link to that poll? (2) Because they don't mean the same thing. (3) WP:IDENTITY matters. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not. I saw it either on a sign or on a map-type thing they give out at the museum. 1995hoo (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Some more background, full disclosure: I am white, but like my username, I live in a state that's home to seven reservations, so FWIW, my two cents:

  1. There isn't really a consensus. In short, I have run across people from the same TRIBE who differ on the "Indian" versus "Native American" thing, and most of the time in vernacular up here in the Northern Plains, I most often hear folks who are enrolled tribal members refer to themselves as "Native people" or "Natives." My take: Those who dislike "Native American" may feel a certain degree of irritation, but those who dislike "Indian" REALLY dislike it and tend to make their views known with some vehemence.
  2. The Smithsonian is not going to be the ideal resource on what "most" Native people actually think or want, particularly given the fights the tribes have had with the Smithsonian over reparation of religious artifacts and human remains. They are better than they used to be, but they have a ways to go.
  3. For what it's worth, "Indian" or "American Indian" is used in United States law as a term of art because, mostly, that was the word used 100+ years ago and so it has accrued a meaning in legal precedent and statute - which is, most likely, the real reason the Smithsonian uses the name it does. However, that does NOT necessarily mean that it is the ideal term to use in this context.
  4. "Native American" arose from two sources, one being academe, seeking to avoid confusion with people from India, and the second being Native people who view "Indian" as offensive because it was a term tracing to Columbus and other early explorers, conquerors who claimed they thought they were in India, and who committed acts of genocide. But OTOH, some Native people view "Native American" as anthropologist-speak or a little condescending.

So, FWIW, just don't edit war abut it. "Native American" is probably your best bet here, as here we mostly are talking about indigenous people of the continental USA. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Name Controversy Again...

I trimmed it down today, removing unessential details of the court case, etc. I'm sure some won't be happy about it. But, work with me and we'll get it done. It needs it. Especially now that it's protected. Cheers. Dkspartan1 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence of cleanup of this section, so I have basically re-written it based upon the newer material and better sources in the main article. I think the main issues covered before my edits remain. I am surprised that there was nothing added about the Original Americans Foundation or the RedskinsFacts.com website.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Washington Redskins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked by Bilorv at 17:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Are a team vs Is a team

This article is about the Washington Redskins franchise. a singular unit, a singular team. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So is the Washington Post wrong to say the Redskins are losing the turnover battle? Calidum 05:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dedicated to venerability not to "sounding cool" We have higher standards than the Washington Post. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Every other sport team article uses "are". There are many grammar contradictions in the English language, even if this is technically one, it's never been an issue of debate, as far as I know. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress so the argument that something hasn't been fixed yet is not very compelling for not fixing it. I understand that saying "you and me" sounds better than "you and I" sometimes. but we don't allow Wikipedia to be written by "what sounds best" even though readability is still an important part of MOS. The Washington Redskins is a professional sports team is perfectly readable and accurate. I actually think it sounds better than Are a team. but I appreciate your feedback. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This convention is based on what is currently on Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement: "Despite exceptions such as usage in The New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular" (emphasis added). So both conventions are used in various reliable sources. And since you mention WP:MOS, I should probably point out the third paragraph of that page, which says "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason". And so, I don't see a good reason of both are acceptable by reliable sources. And I do not see such rule on WP:MOS that basically implies, "We have higher standards than the Washington Post". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The reason is NPOV ( a value that is immune to consensus override ) Saying the Washington Redskins are a team gives undue weight to the fringe theory that there is more than one Washington Redskin. for the sake of NPOV Is is better. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I fail to understand how this is a fringe theory when a number of reliable sources uses this convention. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't find a single source claiming that there is more than one Washington Redskins Team. I've looked. there's just the one.Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. even though it violates NPOV I can only do so much to safeguard Neutrality in Wikipedia. It is a common convention made by minds much duller than mine :) Sorry for not doing more research before my proposal thank you for your feedback. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
NPOV has zero to do with this, and no one is claiming that there is more than one team. The issue is whether or not to use atrocious grammar that would embarrass a third-grader. This really shouldn't need to be a discussion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The grammar is actually sound, at least the New York Times agrees with me. But that's beside the point. Convention is convention so we say are a team. I would still believe even bong would say "The Washington Redskins is a franchise" not "are a franchise" but the article leads with them being a team so it's a mute point. I'll withdraw (yet again) the proposal that I've already withdrawn. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Logo design approval by Red Cloud Athletic fund seems ambiguous

Seems the Washington Post followed up that legend and found nothing to co-oberate it (in section : 3 controversy). Something as hot as this, I don't want to be the only editor on (plus I don't stay logged in because the typeface is smaller when logged in and my eyes are older). https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/indian-school-officials-raise-questions-about-dan-snyders-account-of-redskins-emblem/2013/10/12/6716a17e-32b9-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgabrys (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE

I think that the large paragraph about the trademark litigation in the lede is WP:UNDUEly prominent. I'd like to see it removed from the lede and treated in the body. It reflects a bias towards the most recent events. Thoughts? -- Y not? 03:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be trimmed, but not removed entirely. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll be bold and give it a go. And others will fix my work as needed. -- Y not? 15:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, never mind, looks like you've already done the work. -- Y not? 16:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Still feel free to edit it, if it's been thinned out too much. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

New stadium

Who got rid of the section about the new stadium and why?Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Rank of Super Bowl wins

It was added to the article that "We are counting the Super Bowl win count only, not the teams. Thus, the Redskins end up tied for fourth with the Raiders, not eight all-time. Do not change without consensus on the talk page." in support of the statement "The Redskins' three Super Bowl wins are tied with the Oakland Raiders for fourth place all-time".

This does not seem reasonable to me, and the text of the article is misleading as written. When it says "fourth" the implication is fourth of the teams in the NFL. If two teams were tied for the top of the division, you would not say that the next team was in second place, but instead third place. meamemg (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • For division standings yes, but how are we going to tiebreak Super Bowl winners? Saying they are seventh, well who is sixth? Fifth? The Steelers are clearly in first place all time with six, the 49ers and Cowboys are tied for second place with five each, the Packers, Giants, and Patriots are tied for third place with four each, and then the Redskins and Raiders are tied for fourth place with three each. It could be written better, I agree, but I fail to see how the current way is "not open to interpretation", as the other user continues to say. I've posted on the NFL project talk page to hopefully get more members to help settle this for good. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at ranking, there are many ways ties can be handled. In sports, I've never heard of it using "dense" ranking, which is what it sounds like you are proposing, but only the "standard" ranking. Steelers are in first, 49ers and Cowboys are second, Packers, Giants, and Patriots are 4th, and Redskins and Raiders 7th. Alternatively, we can reword to say "The Redskins' three Super Bowl wins are tied with the Oakland Raiders for fourth place all-time, behind the Pittsburgh Steelers (six), San Francisco 49ers and Dallas Cowboys (five each), and the Green Bay Packers, New York Giants, and New England Patriots (four each)." meamemg (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Archival

I've changed midthreadsleft parameter from 3 to 4 so table of contents is generated. MB298 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Washington Redskins. 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) 05:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Washington Redskins. 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) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Etymology Section First?

Why in the world is this Etymology section the very first thing in the body of the article and not the team history? That makes absolutely no sense. Why is the Redskins page going to be different from every other NFL team page in this way. This section, why it is controversial in itself, I personally think it isn't needed but I won't remove it because I understand why others would want it, would normally be towards the bottom of the article, and that is just where I am going to move it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually now that I look closer at the article, there is already an entire section dedicated to the name and logo controversy, so this Etymology section is completely redundant, so I am removing it. Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Uniform changes

Hello, fellow Wikipedia users.

I have noticed for several years now that the uniforms pictured are incorrect. The Redskins have not used gold pants with their white jerseys in several years; the pants are now burgundy. They also do not wear gold with the burgundy jerseys anymore; they wear white pants. Lastly, ever since the NFL changed the rules regarding alternate helmets, the Redskins have not worn the brown "leather" helmets since 2012. Now they wear their default helmets without the yellow stripe and with gray facemasks. The jerseys also feature throwback logos on the sleeves.

Thank you for your time.

Jimania16 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I alerted the original designer of the image about this years ago, but it seems they were busy at the time and not able to update it (and obviously still haven't). I guess I could try to update it myself? Although I'm not a graphics designer so its quality may suffer as a result. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ 2001 PRESS RELEASES, ADVISORIES AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: http://www.usccr.gov/press/archives/2001/041601st.htm accessed 10/15/2012
  2. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57436794/oregon-bans-native-american-mascots-in-schools/
  3. ^ http://www.pbs.org/pov/inwhosehonor/film_description.php
  4. ^ Summary of the APA Resolution Recommending Retirement of American Indian Mascots: http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx accessed 10/15/20012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Commanders/Archive_1&oldid=1137309362"