User talk:Abc57

I believe that under the wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. Specifically pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

Conjecture are used to discount the Annenburg poll but nothing published in a peer reviewed articole or industry publication. Also surveys that were not designs to be representative are placed with polling data.

The main argument of the Name supporters were removed from the opening paragraph for no apparent reason. They have been there for months and are still referenced by name supporters. I will put them back but with out pseudoscience or argumentative tone not useful in a introduction paragraph.

I will make some changes in accordance with these in mind. We may need some sort of referee to come in at some point as there may be no way to come to an agreement but I would welcome it.

Other problems include very few pro name comments for American Indians who are not on board with the activist by a wide margin.

I will respond to this on the talk page: Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy. In the short run I have reverted one of your changes, restoring a valid and relevant comment from a good source. I am willing to have a discussion now that edits are not being made anonymously. FriendlyFred (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what is there before making edits. Nothing was deleted, the recent polls were placed in chronological order with New Mexico at the end. Subsection headings were removed as unnecessary and because one was a biased opinion regarding the value of two of the studies.

I realize that those that oppose change place emphasis on opinion polls, but in the context of the social science research that show the harm of stereotyping, polls do not prove there is no problem but show how widespread these stereotypes are; in other words instead of showing there is no problem they show the extent of the problem. The more important results are when the question is asked not about football, but if the word redskin is insulting, or an improper term for Native Americans, and the majority agree. If a population surveyed think that both the football team should keep its name and that the word is insulting, this means they think football traditions are more important than avoiding insults to a minority.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK just saw heading gone and no new mexico. I am a little behind but am adding more detail to polls the headings are just there to make things clear as the are multiple polls now. I have a longer reply but still draft form. "If a population surveyed think that both the football team should keep its name and that the word is insulting, this means they think football traditions are more important than avoiding insults to a minority." That is your conclusion not for the artical to decide just to present important aspects for the readers from a nutral point of view.

Your opinions

Your deletion of an item I added to the section on religious groups in the Redskins name article has been reverted by me and now by another editor. The item merely states what was in the news report, that a committee of a religious group voted and made a public statement why the name should change. Your opinion on any content supported by a citation, or its placement within the article is of no importance. In an article as controversial as this, nothing can be added or changed without citing a source or having a discussion.FriendlyFred (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you made a response above that I did not see until now. Yes, I express my opinions on talk pages because they are for open discussions. I do not place my opinions in articles. Your edits do not indicate that your concept of a "neutral point of view" agrees with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in particular Due Weight. FriendlyFred (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]