Jump to content

Talk:Native American mascot controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.241.72.141 (talk) at 22:17, 23 September 2014 (edit summary removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

APA Resolution

Previously only on the list of further reading, I have made the resolutions point into an outline for the Arguments Against that I hope will be fleshed out.

However the article as a whole seems to be muddled by particular cases without using them as example of the topic.FigureArtist (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redskins

No one seems to have pointed out that ‘redskin’ is a derisive term and not the same as ‘brave’, ‘chief’ etc. I doubt a team called the Washington ‘Blackskins’ or ‘Yellowskins’ would be considered acceptable. I also don’t see the similarity with the use of the term ‘Fighting Irish’, which is a nationality not a race. Now if you were to use the ‘Celtic’ comparison - hence ‘Celts’ - that would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.67.171 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: The Washington Redskins are actually not named after any Native tribe, but, having the franchise originate in Boston, are rather named after the Sons of Liberty, who dressed up as natives during the Boston Tea Party. This is far from correct. The team was originally named the Boston Braves after the baseball team (the style at the time, which also gave the NFL the New York Giants, after the baseball team now in San Francisco). When the team moved after a year from Braves Field to Fenway Park, owner George Preston Marshall wanted a name with Indian ties because he didn't want to replace uniforms with Indian-head logos and the like, and started using Redskins. Granted, the baseball's team name may have come from the Tammany Hall braves of the old days, but that's hardly a direct link to the Indian imagery of Redskins. For this reason, I deleted the above quote; it's just wrong. DrBear (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well you should have. It was someone's personal interpretation, based on no research into the matter. They were named for the Boston Braves, whose own name had nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Warriors mascot

The Golden State Warriors are no longer represented by a Native American "Warrior" and haven't been since the late 1970s. Throughout the 80s and into the 90s they were represented by a logo featuring the state of California, and since 1995 have been represented by "Thunder" a fictional cloud dwelling superhero who does not even resemble a native american whatsoever. Please remove the Warriors from this article's discussion of current native americna mascots. For more info on Thunder: http://www.nba.com/warriors/mascot/meet_thunder.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.118.1 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a feather projecting backwards from the mascot's head in the photo at the Golden State Warriors article. Badagnani 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of his thunderbolt helmet. Seriously, your stretching to make this offensive when the Warriors organization has gone out of their way to make sure it's not. Unless you are anthropomorphized thunderbolt, I don't think you can be offended by Thunder. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.118.1 (talk • contribs)
I don't see it as a stretch at all. These designs are reviewed for different considerations before they're released. Perhaps if this was a team that didn't have a history of Native mascotting, it could be overlooked. With that history known, it does very much look like a native warrior stereotype.WallyCuddeford 06:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians

No one every stops too think if canadians are offended by the canucks and canadians hockey teams. we're not, but no one every thinks about it.24.144.137.244 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered, just like with the Fighting Irish. What it comes down to is, there's a concerted effort of native groups hoping to rescind the native mascots, and many schools have refused just such a movement. I know of no movement to have Notre Dame, the Vancouver Cannucks, or the Montreal Canadiens' mascots changed. If someone wanted to start such a movement, they're free to try.WallyCuddeford 06:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KansasCityChiefs 1000.png

Image:KansasCityChiefs 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 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of major teams?

A list of major teams, both who have accepted and have turned down requests to change, would be an awesome addition to the article. (I don't have the time right now to do it myself.)WallyCuddeford 06:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


there is one in another article about native american names in sports, im not sure if we need it in here though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.174.216 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) I am not a editor on here, so I don't know the rules, but why are the Seahawks not listed as a team using Native imagery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.242.194 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate terms

For an article about being politically correct and less offensive I'm surprised the authors aren't up to date. "Native American" is not and never really was an accepted term by the indigenous people of North America as it is confusing and lumps together too many indigenous groups. Although most of the indigenous people prefer to be known first by their tribal name if you have to lump them together they vastly prefer the old name "American Indian" which they are used to. "American Indian" is also the term legally recognized by the US government and the term used by most internal Indian organizations, ex: "The Indian Defense League" who's founder recently died but whom campaigned against Indian names used for sports teams. Please keep this in mind in the future. You could also just use "indigenous people" as this is the term adopted by the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.244.9 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the debate over "Negro" vs. "Black" vs. "African American", that latter of which is presumably why "Native American" came to be used to indicate the people also called "American Indians". This also sounds like a matter of opinion. The important thing should be to be clear. "Indian" was the term invented by Columbus because he thought (or wanted others to think) that he had arrived in India, and that's presumably the reason it came to be considered to be politically incorrect, at least in some circles. However, it seems like quite a few "indigenous Americans" or "aboriginal Americans" actually like the term "Indian". It's also understandable that members of different tribes don't like being all thrown together, as some of them were historical rivals and combatants, a fact forgotten by the subjugation of all of them by the U.S. government. I can't argue that "Native American" isn't kind of ambiguous. Technically, I'm a native American, though my great-great-grandparents came from England and Ireland. So what does all this mean? Well, you might not like the term "Native American" for American Indians, but it seems to be here to stay. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Bugs" I think you misinterpreted my point, you also made a few incorrect statements in your argument. Firstly, I think you've taken my comment as a standard right wing comment critical of political correctness and change. My intention was really just the opposite, I'm trying to explain that "Native American" has fallen out of favor as an appropriate term since the mid 1990's and is consequently used much less often in academic writing. Secondly, not "a good number" but the vast majority of indigenous people in America prefer "American Indian" over "Native American" when describing them collectively. This being the case I support the continued use of "American Indian" because it is what the native people prefer to use. If the majority of indigenous people supported "Native American" I would too wholeheartedly because I believe their opinion matters the most in this debate. A few other minor clarifications I need to make are 1: "Native American" is a term created by a white person (with good but misguided intentions) 2: Columbus did not think he was in India he thought he was in the East Indies thus the term "Indian". Indies is essentially a synonym for "exotic place" "Indian" just means person from the Indies. As such, West Indies does work when applied to the western hemisphere and "Indian" technically makes sense. But that is not as important as the fact that "Indian" became the most accepted term used for centuries up till today. It is probably for this reason that most native people continue to use it and I don't think it's right for an outsider to decide that they should switch to another term that they neither created or chose. Even if in your opinion it sounds better. Any other concerns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.244.9 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both have good points. It seems that, while many indigenous people in the United States do continue to call themselves by the familiar term "American Indian" (the term also used in many of the treaties signed between the indigenous nations and the U.S. government), "Native American" seems to be used more widely in the context of sports mascots, by a ratio of 2 to 1.

Badagnani 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intent to throw anyone in with right-wing pooh-poohing of political correctness, and I apologize if it came on too strong. Actually, you've made exactly the same point I was making to someone the other day about Chief Wahoo. It is whites who keep trying to tell everyone what we should call someone else. The only opinion that really matters is that of the people who are getting the label. "Native American" is in the popular lexicon and is not going away. I basically alternate between that and "Indian", being ignorant of which is the "preferred". If "Indian" is preferred, for real, I'm sticking with that, except where necessary to distinguish between Indians from India, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One clue to me should have been that Russell Means and his group called themselves the "American Indian Movement", not the "Native American Movement" or the "Indigenous Peoples Movement" or whatever else. Of course, "AIM" makes a better acronym, and sounds, purposely or not, like something one would do with a bow-and-arrow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I have always heard, and also what the articles on the subjects say, "East Indies" refers to certain islands east of India, a word with the same root as Hindu. It doesn't mean "exotic place". Columbus either thought, or wanted others to think, that he had reached the islands just east of India. Also, interestingly enough, the article about AIM itself uses "Native American" as a synonym for "American Indian" or "Amerindian". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points as well, and at least for the time being it does seem that American Indian and Native American will be used interchangeably. I suppose when you get down to it the intent behind the terms is more important than the terms themselves especially with respect to this article. By the way I am aware that "Indies" is related to "India" and that that term is originally native to India (I think related to local rivers). What I was saying is that it became a synonym for exotic. Thus the term "West Indies" for islands in the western hemisphere where Columbus landed. In any case whatever the term originally meant is less important than how it's perceived and it is still accepted by the people in question. But for the rest of us at this point it has really become more a matter of preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.244.9 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met a Native American who prefers American Indian so I am curious where you came up with the idea that American Indian is preferred. Also as a descendent of Native Americans I find it offensive also as Native Americans aren’t from India or the Indies it could be argued offensive to them as well--209.181.16.93 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names

The names Charlene Teters (first prominent anti-mascot activist) and Vernon Bellecourt (leader of AIM and prominent anti-mascot protestor) should be mentioned in the article. This is just a start; there are many others who could be mentioned as well. But they are an important part of the history. Badagnani 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Redskins logo.gif

Image:Redskins logo.gif 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) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

This reads like an research paper, not an encyclopedia article. Secret account 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then work on improving it rather than slinging mud at it and expecting others to do your work for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FloridaStateSeminoles.png

The fsu logo is being used in this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use ONLY FOR FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY articles. it will be deleted from this article.

This has nothing to do with the article but rather how FSU has allowed its logos to be used 

thank you.--Nolephin (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this removal. Corvus cornixtalk 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Badagnani and his continuous vendetta

i agree with the fact that wikipedia is encyclopedic but User Badagnani is on a vendetta against FSU. Siteing i agree with the fact that wikipedia is encyclopedic but User Badagnani is on a vendetta against FSU. His “sources” are un verified websites like blue corn comics. He continuously has attempted to skew a negative POV on every single FSU athletic page and i ask you respect the Florida State name as i respect this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.31 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i is annoying to repare the vandalism he has done--UkrNole 485 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that you moderate your tone. The source quoted in Blue Corn Comics is Florida Today, a major daily newspaper. I assume if the microfilm or back issue in which the article quoted is acquired, and properly cited from said microfilm, the text will not be blanked, as it just was. Badagnani (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article in question. Badagnani (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All instances of the Blue Corn Comics reprint of the 2005 Florida Today article have been replaced by the actual article itself, at this link. Badagnani (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respect does not mean showing preference for one POV other another. Articles are intended to show both sides of an issue, not sweep the less prevailing view under the carpet as is being done by the anonymous IP and UkrNole485. Plesae do not throw around terms like "vendetta" or "vandalism", as they are not appropriate for these actions, nor are they civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinm1978 (talk • contribs)

Who-says-what is important

(Transferred from User talk:JohnInDC with his permission)

Find me a citation for anyone, other than a white, arguing for retention of Native American nicknames. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my obligation, I don't think. But in any case I think the greater problem is that the phrase appears to be included not as an encyclopedic fact (which, if so plainly true, is unnecessary) but to disparage the argument. It shouldn't be there. JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I mean - try taking that little parenthetical ("typically by white people") and turning it into a declarative sentence that isn't POV. "This argument is advanced typically by white people and therefore is . . ." - what? Unsound? Self-interested? Unempathetic? If this factoid is going to be included, then I think it deserves its own sentence, where the appropriateness of its inclusion can be assessed properly. JohnInDC (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and therefore does not reflect what Native Americans themselves think about it. It's white people telling Native Americans how they should think. In the "support" section, there is a Native American citation that is alleged to be "support", when what it actually is, is a "we can live with it" statement. That's hardly "support". The article's attempt to say "this is OK with us, so it should be OK with them" is a typical racist POV-push. P.S. I'm a white guy and the issue of team names is not, in fact, a real hot-button issue with me. The hot-button issue is the patronizing attitude of people telling other people that they should be OK with this stuff. And that attitude is present in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few exceptions to the patronizing attitude was shown by Florida State, which on more than one occasion has sought permission from the Seminoles to use their name. In Illinois, I heard the pro-Illiniwek arguments for years. None of those arguments were advanced by Indians. They were advanced by white people telling Indians why they should be OK with it. That's extremely offensive, and the article doesn't make any attempt to neutralize it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. You, or someone who cares about the issue, should fix the article to say these things rather than presenting making the case by innuendo, which is what that parenthetical does. JohnInDC (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(What offends me is when someone with a coherent point of view that can be succinctly and rationally stated, presents it in a shorthand way calculated not to persuade, but instead to play on emotions. "Typically by white people" reads to me about the same as, "typically by racists". That sloppy - and inflammatory - presentation is why I agree that the parenthetical shouldn't be there.) (PS - that isn't directed at you.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Yes, the parenthetical/shorthand is not the best approach, but it needs to be raised somehow, or neutralized in the article. Another way to do it would be to point out the race of every spokesman on the subject. That would be probably also be shot down for a similar reason. Its only chance of survival would be if the article stated the race of every commentator on the subject, white or otherwise. The trick is to find a valid source that actually speaks to this issue. I hear the Limbaugh types say, "You are too sensitive", to those who object to Indian nicknames... but just let any minority make a similar putdown of any white sacred cow, and it's a different story altogether. See what I mean? I wonder where the valid source is for that side of the issue? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
("Typically non-Native Americans") actually does a better job of making the point you made - namely, that whoever's saying it, it's not the group whose image is being used - and the non-specificity of the notation avoids the implicit fingerpointing too. JohnInDC (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I'll put it that way and see what happens. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, as well as re-wording the one Indian statement to point out that his view is at best conditional support, not a blanket endorsement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks pretty good. I still don't know if the assertion is *true*, but it seems like a logical thing to suppose, and given the way it's worked in now, the lack of sourcing is a lot less troublesome (to me anyhow). JohnInDC (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone altered it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My, that didn't take long - JohnInDC (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back. If the IP address changes it again, I'll refer them to the talk page. May I move or copy this section to that talk page? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I think this might prove useful to the discussion. Thanks for asking. JohnInDC (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Spindel book is probably the best historical overview of the issue; have you all read it? If contributing here, you probably should. Badagnani (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know whether that book or any other can refute the observation that it's non-Native Americans who make the arguments about such nicknames being "respectful" and so on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with anything in life, you can find just about anyone who says anything, Alan Keyes being an example from another ethnic group of someone who holds atypical views. However, it's a question of the general feeling or weight of feeling on behalf of each ethnic group. A few surveys of public opinion have been conducted, though I'm not sure of the sample size nor how scientific each has been. There are American Indian mascots at some American Indian schools and colleges but definitely mascots such as "Redskins" and the split-jumping caucasian Chief Illiniwek are roundly eschewed by actual American Indians everywhere. Badagnani (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Redskins" emanates from George Preston Marshall, whose behavior suggests he was a white supremacist. So much for "respect" on his part. Those various professional teams are anomolies from an era when ethnicity was fair game for stereotyping. The pros, obviously, are beyond the reach of the NCAA. But being pros, it's about money. If there was any evidence that the nickname "Redskins" was actually hurting the team financially, I assure you it would be dropped in a New York minute. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case of the Seminole Tribe of Florida's official statements probably has a lot to do with power dynamics. In the early 1990s a Seminole woman was selling needlepoint at the Student Center marketplace one week and was told by Florida State athletics officials that she could not sell her crafts that were embroidered with the name "Florida Seminoles" because the team owned that name. So the "respect" has limits; similarly, beer has been known to have been thrown on American Indians protesting the mascot by protesters who purportedly express such reverence and admiration for the indigenous people their mascot represents. These same beer-throwers will then say, "I *am* a Seminole, and it doesn't offend me"--however, they're not ethnically Seminole but somehow believe they've absorbed such an identity due to being part of a university that names its students "Seminoles." This newfound identification allows non-Indians, then, to do anything they like vis-a-vis real Seminoles because they have convinced themselves they *are* real Seminoles. Similar processes have taken place in formerly Indian regions of South America, where members of entirely white populations have convinced themselves that they are the true indigenous people, allowing for a total disregard of the actual Índios. This psychological assuming of a new identity is at the crux of these issues, yet has been least explored. Badagnani (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating observations. It undercuts the notion that everything is peachy at FSU just because they got permission from the real Seminoles. To make a trivial comparison, it's like Vikings fans going to Vikings games and pretending to be Vikings. The difference is, there aren't any real Vikings around, and so it doesn't matter whether they get stereotyped or marginalized. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is false many people from scandinavia and of scandinavian descent consider vikings to be part of their heritage The article also fails to mention the animosity the removal of american indian mascots creates towards american indians Irishfrisian (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC) (Copied from my talk page - BB) Read the article in the March 4, 2002 issue of Sports Illustrated. They have a poll in which an overwhelming majority of Native Americans say they don't find the nicknames offensive, and most Native Americans living off reservations like the Tomahawk Chop at Braves games. So while most Native American activists find the names offensive, the rest don't really care, and in fact a lot of them like the usage.Tracer Bullet (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying they don't find the nicknames offensive is not an endorsement, it's an "I don't care enough to make a thing of it." And I recall the people on the Cherokee reservation in NC in 1991 saying, "As long as they keep buying them, we'll keep making them." That's not an endorsement either, it's pragmatism. The arguments about Chief Illiniwek being "respectful", etc., always struck me as patronizing. I would just like to know if there are any American Indians who would make the identical statements that the supporters tend to make. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology whereby that poll was conducted is not known. Other polls, however, have had differing results. It's clearly not a good course of action to fetishize a single poll, no matter how widely known the magazine that conducted it is. See [1] and [2] for other polls. Badagnani (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the old saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." As you suggest, one poll means nearly nothing. Who is asked, and how they are asked, is very important. A number of independently conducted polls might be more meaningful, as they could indicate a trend. I, as a white guy who played Cowboys-and-Indians when I was a kid, didn't know any different then. That was in the 1950s, the last decade in which the ethnic stereotypes went unchallenged. I was thinking about the Golden State Warriors. They used to use an American Indians mascot, and switched to a generic, video-game type "warrior". Presumably they did that voluntarily; I don't know that any threats were made. But suppose they had switched to a Maasai warrior? Can you imagine the uproar that would have caused? There is no question there's a public double standard, in staying away from nearly every ethnic stereotype except for the peoples that our white "warriors" conquered, the peoples who seem to have very little political clout. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


On the lighter side, I was reading the part about opposition to the mascots, and one of the references reminded me of this old 1950s story that was alleged by its teller to be true - that a foreign diplomat who knew nothing of American sports was convinced there was a civil war raging in America, because he saw a newspaper headline that read, "Cleveland Indians murder Washington Senators." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that story. A good one, even if it may be apocryphal.
I think what this discussion underscores is that the arguments are more nuanced than "white racists propagated and maintain these symbols, Native Americans hate them, except for the Florida Seminoles, who have endorsed them". A fair discussion would, should, note the context in which most or all of these symbols were adopted (i.e., the U.S. of Bugs's childhood); the strong opposition of some / many / most Native Americans at one point toward the use of these symbols vs. arguable indifference today; the position of the Florida Seminoles and the various ways of interpreting that sanction. None of those fit into a parenthetical; all of them can be explained or described in a way that does not ascribe to all members of an ethnic group, the views, actions or opinions of some of its members. JohnInDC (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant?

Under the section 'Financial Impact of Change,' there's a few sentences on the Washington Bullets/Wizards and Tennessee Oilers/Titans name changes. Does anyone else feel that these are somewhat irrelevant to the overall topic? Kt21783 (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather beside the point, doesn't it? Also I'm not exactly sure what it means to say, "teams have changed names for non-financial reasons" -- there is at least an argument that in the two cases cited, the ownership concluded that the added cost of marketing under prior, newly inappropriate names ("Bullets" during a time of high homicides, and "Oilers" in a state better known for its whiskey) would, over the long term, be more expensive than simply changing names.
I took it out. JohnInDC (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid why this paragraph, giving context for such changes, was removed. Badagnani (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't add anything. At most it says, "teams occasionally change their names". Okay; but far, far more often they do not. (Even when a change might've made sense - e.g., Boston Braves move to Milwaukee and become the Milwaukee Braves, thereupon to Atlanta.) It's clear that professional sports teams regard their nicknames as highly valuable assets of the franchise, and the fact that those two teams changed their names hardly undermines that claim. (The Oilers/Titans example is particularly weak, given that teams routinely change their names when moving to a new city - the former nickname having little value in the new locale. Washington Senators become the Minnesota Twins. Montreal Expos become the Washington Nationals. Seattle Pilots become the Texas Rangers. That list is *long* - and that's just baseball.) Lastly, the argument that the Bullets and Oilers changed their names for "non-financial" reasons ultimately makes little sense. (I rather understated this point above.) Professional sports teams exist in order to make money. If they do something short of being ordered to by a court, then the presumption has to be that they did it for financial reasons. They certainly don't voluntarily take steps that are going to *lose* them money. JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Professional teams, in particular, change or retain their names strictly for professional, i.e. marketing reasons. They might want to maintain continuity, or they might want to break it. The Braves retained their name when they went to Milwaukee, instead of adopting "Brewers", in order to distinguish themselves from the minor league club. The Browns dropped their nickname when they went to Baltimore, adopting the traditional nickname, for the opposite reason. Presumably, if the Redskins thought they would gain more money than they would lose, by renaming themselves, then they would do it. Good luck finding a citation for such speculataion, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Illustrated poll

This text is pure opinion, from a single poll of probably only a couple of hundred individuals, whose methodology has not been made clear. Presenting this text as the truth rather than as the writer's opinion, without giving background and specifics of the poll, is inadvisable.


Badagnani (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me there had been earlier discussion that debunked the credibility of that survey for several reasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The poll wasn't seriously debunked at all. The burden of proof for attacking the methodology and bias of SI's poll lies with those who say it is inaccurate. SI had no ax to grind in this argument, indeed, the authors claimed that the results surprised them. Saying only a few hundred people were polled just shows that the person criticizing the poll doesn't understand statistical sampling. FWIW, my two cents is that teams used Indians names for the same reason companies do (Pontiac cars, Indian motorcycles and Apache helecopters anyone?) because the names are cool and the teams want to associate themselves with cool. Indians were fierce and honorable fighters, and teams want to associate themselve with those qualities too. Hanksummers (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the burden of proof is on S.I. to demonstrate that it was not a biased poll. As I recall, the objection was that basically nothing was known about the poll, i.e. the exact phraseology of the questions and such, and hence it was suspect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of excessive POV

This article features some of the worst bias and lack of objectivity I have seen in Wikipedia. Text is contorted and twisted to show excess POV that should not be tolerated in an encyclopedia. For example, in the section concerning FSU two (protesting-complaining) individuals are given enormous weight and text in the article when at odds within their own Nation/Tribe. Their significance is severely overstated, apparently to make a political point that has been soundly rejected by a vast majority of members of their own tribe/people. At least one Wikipedia editor, Badagnani, shows his own lack of objectivity by restoring - repeatedly - unsound edits to a poorly written text, apparently to push his own POV. This is completely unnecessary and destroys the credibility of the article and Wikipedia in general.

One individual given weight far beyond his value to the matter is David Narcomey, an AIM activist. At least Narcomey has had someone write up his own Wikipedia article so that his POV is explained in terms of his notable activities as evidenced by ink in the print and online media. Fine. This is how significant activists are chronicled in an encyclopedia.

signed/ Bold Wikieditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some undue weight, but it's important for the article to point out out that Seminole Indians are not necessarily all of a single mind about the use of their tribal name for a college sports team. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the anon editor be specific about which statements s/he believes to be incorrect? Badagnani (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edits speak for themselves. You have deliberately reverted a balanced presentation of controversial material thus minimizing the credibility of the article and Wikipedia. You are continually pushing your POV in biased edits across multiple similar articles in Wikipedia, obviously to push your interpretation of the facts and political views especially in areas concerning minority groups. No problem usually, but then you repeatedly deny editors with equally valid and even majority viewpoints any ability to edit the text thus becoming, ironically, a cyber version of a bigot yourself.
signed/ Bold Wikieditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits do not speak for themselves, and I'm fairly certain this discussion has been had before, but what the heck, we'll re-hash it again. Neutral point-of-view means that both sides are presented. Your edits take out a lot of the contributions (as well as valid information cited by third-party sources) that bring balance to this article. There is a controversy, and your edits appear to be seeking to minimize it and make it seem like a minor thing. Just because the majority viewpoint is that Chief Osceola is not offensive does not mean that everybody sees it as inoffensive, and just because you find a viewpoint objectionable doesn't mean it gets removed or made to seem like not a big deal. I have reverted most of your changes, please do not revert again without discussing here first.
Also, calling people sockpuppets with absolutely no proof makes it incredibly hard to assume good faith with your contributions. Justinm1978 (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - aren't sock puppets prohibited on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retract that remark immediately, or I'm taking you to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remark retracted - my apologies for suggesting you are a sock puppet. The administrators agree you are flesh and blood.

signed/ Bold Wikieditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, on one condition: Start signing your posts, by adding 4 tildes afterward, so the bot program doesn't have to do it for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a good example of how this section on Chief Osceola's controversy should go, check out the Chief Illiniwek article. Justinm1978 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides are not being presented fairly in this article (about FSU, for the moment). My edits being reverted showing that the Seminole Tribe of Florida hand makes the clothing and tools of the Chief Osceola symbol are instant evidence of bias - this piece is a hatchet job (pun unintended) on FSU. Personally, I think the Narcomey POV should be stated, but equal ink needs to be given to the other side. Currently all we have are inflammatory statements from Narcomey, but little context and balance, for example that Narcomey likely represented himself to the press as having tribal authority he did not have. Undue weight is being given to ONE person - Narcomey. Not balanced, the tail is wagging the dog. Narcomey merely seeks to pour gasoline on what he thinks is a fire or, apparently, should be a fire. What is understated is that Narcomey was publicly smacked down by his own tribe, and then crushed by the vote of not only his tribe's elders, but also rejected by the elders in authority of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Then we have editor Badagnani digging up some obscure left-wing Seminole, who has an activist viewpoint on the issue and is met with open arms as an addition to this piece. Wikipedia should NOT be some kind of activist megaphone. It must present issues on contentious subjects in such a way that credibility of the material is enhanced.
Lest you think the Seminole Tribe of Florida needs Mr. Narcomey as a mouthpiece, I beg to differ. The Seminole Tribe of Florida, with one phone call could shut FSU's use of Seminole imagery down in a minute. The Tribe is fabulously rich and could buy a legal dream team that would confound not only FSU but the entire state government in legal tangles for decades if they chose to do so. They have all the power in this matter - FSU does exactly what the Tribe wants when it comes to Seminole symbols, ever since 1972 at least and probably before.

70.157.181.174 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this article has some serious issues regarding neutral POV. Just to illustrate: At time of writing, the "Arguments Opposing the Use of Native American Mascots" section is Section #2. There are two more sections representing the "Anti" side of the equation (really 3, but the Professional Sports section needs to be merged into the preceding section), before finally getting to the "Pro" side of the equation in Section 6. And even then, there are refutations added in to every argument listed when there are no such refutations back in Section 2. Does this sound even remotely fair to anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.66.190 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article meets the requirements of neutrality by covering the entire range of opinions while giving due weight to sources. Due weight does not mean equal weight when there are so many sources from peer-reviewed academic journals and books, statements by professional organizations of social scientists, and others that have studied the topic impartially. They are all on the anti-mascot side of the controversy. The only unequivocal pro-mascot statements are made by team owners and fans, whose bias is easily rebutted by additional reference to scientific sources. The consensus by hundreds of thousands of psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, school counselors, educators, and civil rights lawyers is that the use of native mascots by non-native teams is harmful and should be stopped. The only real controversy is regarding too what degree individual tribes may sanction the use of their particular name and images by a team, the FSU Seminoles being the most prominent example; which is if anything too extensively covered since there is a separate article.FigureArtist (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to history section

Please undo this edit, which makes no sense, grammatical or otherwise. Badagnani (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kansas City Chiefs logo.svg

The image Image:Kansas City Chiefs logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois won the game.

A defeat for political correctness. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Badagnani (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Oregon says "F.U." to Illinois by refusing to acknowledge their name. Illinois returns the favor by defeating them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to the article though? Justinm1978 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oregon refuses to acknowledge Illinois' nickname, but it has no effect on anything. Political correctness defeated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't answer how it is relevant to the article. By implication, you are asserting that had they referred to them by their nickname and Illinois had lost, it would have been a victory for political correctness. What does the score have to do with the price of tea in China? Justinm1978 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Oregon had spent their time on developing their basketball team instead of copping an attitude about Illinois' nickname, maybe they would have won the game instead of losing by 18 points. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it was also rather impolite of them to treat their guests that way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, that doesn't address why it belongs in this article. You're giving original research to draw that conclusion. Correlation != causation. Justinm1978 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the use of images by institutions, not about athletic results.DrBear (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Indian Mascot Law

In April of 2010, Wisconsin passed a law which set up a system where people could file a complaint with the Department of Education and set up a hearing in order to make a high school change "race-based" mascots, most notably anything which sounds like "Indians." So far, three schools have lost their mascots

Also, Carthage College changed its name from the "Redmen" to the "Red Men" in order to get away from any racial overtones. Dele3344 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equating war paint to black face

is like equating camo paint that a Soldier slaps on before squatting down in underbrush to "white face." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.115.131 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race and sports

Race and sports could use a brief summary of this article if someone is willing to lend a hand there. Thanks! -Location (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes/citing problems

There seems to be some problems with the footnotes and numbering citations on this page, especially in the section talking about the financial impact of changing team logos, which refers to footnote 9. Footnote 9 cites to an inapplicable NJ legal article.Can anybody straighten this out? Hanksummers (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Name Change and edits to Establish NPOV

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

This subject of this article has the US Civil Rights Commission opinion to represent the legal point of view (with concurrence of many native, civil rights, educational organizations), and the APA resolution with its numerous studies to represent the scientific point of view. The harm done by Native American Mascots is no more controversial than evolution based upon knowledge, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to present. The popular but uneducated opinion of fans who "want to keep their indian" should be reduced to a single line; and the name of this article should be changed to Racist Stereotypes and Cultural Appropriation in American Sports which is the title of a symposium that will be held at the National Museum of the American Indian in February [3].

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

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

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

Move/Merge FSU section?

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

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

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

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

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

Your bulleted points are all statements of your own opinion, which is rather irrelevant for the article. Just like the statements of opinion by user Gulbenk are opinionbased rather than source based. It is also incorrect to say that the article should note that the trend is positive and needed, the article should not say any such thing since that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:EDITORIALIZE. It should state that certain groups and individuals think the development is positive and needed, and note that this is the majority view if that is the case (in which case it should be supported by sources not assertions). Weight to different viewpoint should be allotted based on prominence in the sources alone, of course not giving equal time to different views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know I needed to cite refs on a Talk page. FigureArtist (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it helps to distinguish your opinion from others', and to give authority to your statements. In anycase the article cannot say that a specific development is good and needed. It can say that someone notable has said that it is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, the statement would be that the APA, USCRC, NAACP (1999), National Education Association (Every Year for some time), and NCAA all support the end these practices for non-native teams, and they say immediately. Opposing views pale by comparison. FigureArtist (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I listed only the 100% impartial organizations, not the several Native American Organizations who agree. Is there any unbiased, impartial opposition? (This does not include public opinion reported in the newspapers.) OK, so a WP article cannot give an opinion, but is stating that the issue is "debatable" not similar value judgement? FigureArtist (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FSU section does seem very large compared to the rest of the article so per WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARY I think it is a good idea to spin it out to the article on Osceola and Renegade and leave a summary in place. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps someone can run a word count on the FSU section (and other sections) so that we can get a better definition of "very big". I'm not quite sure what FigureArtist is referring to, when stating that the NCAA supports the end of "these practices for non-native teams". What practices, specifically? The ones they sanctioned in the FSU situation? Also, do the APA, USCRC, NAACP, and NEA all renew their objections annually, or just the NEA? I couldn't tell by the comment. If all renew (or modify) their positions annually, this would be important information to add to the article. It would help to update decade old and seemingly out-of-date information. Also, why do the opposing views of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma "pale by comparision" to views expressed by non-native groups? Gulbenk (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a social scientist by training, not a lawyer, so I am not used to having to restate everything that has gone before every time I make a new statement. What practices: the subject of the article. All the organizations use similar wording in their statements. The exception for native schools is implied or explicit, so the schools acquiring permission from individual tribes are not "opposing views". Any school may seek this permission, some succeed, some fail (such as U of ND, an example that is strikingly absent although the case is fully covered here. All organizations other than the NEA have issued statements that they have not retracted, so they stand. The NEA chooses to put their recommendation in their annual report with all the other goal they seek for schools. FigureArtist (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ·ʍaunus I greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments regarding this article and suggestions for better, more authoritative, communication in Talk discussions. However, I disagree (rather strongly) with your assessment of the FSU section in this article. The FSU situation is the most current major development in this controversy. The resolution reached by the NCAA, with support from native tribes, directly opposes positions and opinions expressed by the APA and others. It contains statements from authoritative sources within a native group, that activists within that group, who oppose the use of the name and imagery of natives by non-natives, are a minority. A recorded vote within the governing body of that native group seems to validate those statements. While the Seminole experience should not be extrapolated to other native groups, it is nonetheless noteworthy, and should be included in this article. Why would it be incorrect to give these real world examples equal weight with the academic hypothesis expressed by APA. This controversy seems to be unresolved, and unlike FigureArtist, I do not believe that the APA is the final word or authority on the matter. Please do not unilaterally sanction the removal of opposing views, by "trimming" the FSU section. If you feel that I am wrong in my stance, perhaps we can take up the matter with some higher authority within this encyclopedia. I am completely willing to abide by the consensus of those more senior than myself, I just don't believe we've heard that yet. Gulbenk (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any higher authorities regarding editorial decisions on content than the talkpage consensus. The way to resolve it is to get more input. You could start an RfC to attract attention from other editors. I agree that the FSU issue makes for an interesting case, but it is not the most prominent case in the literature on the Mascot controversy I think. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I belong to a Facebook group Native Appropriations which posted this link RE: FSU [4]

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

And another: [5]: Can/Should a WP article do justice to the fine details of the FSU mascot? I do not think so, it needs to be summarized within a general description of the issue of individual tribes sanctioning mascots, which would include all the others that have done so, or denied such a request.FigureArtist (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varying degrees of offensiveness?

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

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

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

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

Fixing Broken/Inaccessible Links

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

Clarification of APA Resolution / Civil Rights Commission Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion vs. Verified Fact

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

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

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

Anil Adyanthaya from the Boston Globe wrote on June 5, 2005, "The use of Aztec or Seminole as a nickname by itself would not appear to be racist, as such names refer to a particular civilization rather than an entire race of people. In this way, they are no different from other school nicknames such as Trojans and Spartans (like Aztecs, ancient peoples) or Fighting Irish and Flying Dutchmen (like Seminoles, nationalities). Similarly, Warriors and Braves are no different from the fighting men of other cultures, like Vikings, Minutemen, or Musketeers (all current NCAA mascots, the first of which is also an NFL mascot) so it seems hard to argue that their use is uniquely demeaning in some way."[1]

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

That statement should of course also be attributed to Anil Adyanthaya and not to the paper he works for. The article can include opinion no problem, but only if it is the opinion of someone notable and only it has to be clearly stated whose opinion it is. Indian Country today is a fully reliable media outlet, and should be considered mainstream media for issues pertaining to Native Americans.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there is any way to fairly discuss this issue without reporting a selection of opinions, properly attributed. By the way, the full text of the Anil Adyanthaya article is available to HighBeam Research subscribers (which includes many Wikipedia editors who have received access per the program described at WP:HIGHBEAM) here:[6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the quote is important enough to bother; the point, if there is one, that names themselves are not always offensive, could be made from more substantial (and accessible) references.FigureArtist (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Anil Adyanthaya/Boston Globe source had been cited in four places in the article, but I have reduced it to one by finding better, more current sources. It had never been a good source, being an op/ed piece by a lawyer with no particular expertise.FigureArtist (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling Error

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

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

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

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

What next?

I have made significant changes without much response.

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

Consistency between related articles?

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

New Sources

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

Edmonton Eskimos?

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

William and Mary

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

current status info

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

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

How inclusive should an article be?

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

Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversion of deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalization

See last item on this FAQ for rule on "member(s) of Congress": [7]FriendlyFred (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams (drummer)

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

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

Archive this talk page?

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

Article is a leftist piece of trash

This article is a pile of trash made up by a bunch of sociology majors from tumblr, case in point it doesn't seem to mention that the descendants of the designer of the Redskins logo- WHO ARE AMERICAN INDIANS THEMSELVES- have spoken in defense of the logo and the Redskins name.96.241.72.141 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Adyanthaya, Anil (June 5, 2005). "Sports, mascots, and Native Americans". The Boston Globe.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_American_mascot_controversy&oldid=626823048"