Talk:Chicago Blackhawks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Canucks rivalry[edit]

Would it be worth mentioning the rivalry that exists between this team and the Vancouver Canucks on this page? Or it would warrant its own page? If anything that rivalry is bigger than the ones vs. St. Louis and Detroit today.--Xiaoshan Math (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Sure, if you can come up with multiple reliable media sources confirming that this is a strong rivalry stretching out across numerous years. As it happens, though, we tend to get a lot of folks claiming "rivalries" for every combination of two teams that had a tough playoff series in the previous season, so we discount the vast majority of them. Given that Chicago and Vancouver only play four regular season games against one another in your typical season, and that they haven't been in the same division together in thirty years, odds that they have a particularly noteworthy rivalry aren't high.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There have been plenty of times in NHL history where teams played each other frequently in the playoffs over a short period of time, but almost never has a lasting rivalry been created. Detroit-Colorado is the only one I can think of, and only then because the Draper-Lemieux incident served as a catalyst. At this point, I don't think there is any indication that three consecutive playoff match-ups has created a lasting, notable rivalry. Especially given the Hawks are over 80 years old. Three years is a drop in the bucket. It is certainly something that warrants brief mention in the history section surrounding 2009-2011 on both the Hawks and Canucks article, however. Resolute 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Ravenswing and Resolute said it best: There is a trend in a lot of sports articles that once there has been a chippy game or a series or two played close that there is instantly a "rivalry", when at best it is short lived. I'm not saying this is the case here, but this is especially the case I have seen with younger editors/fans who swear up and down that Teams "X" and "Y" have been rivals "my whole life!". Remember that in terms of verifiability, even if you find a couple of sources, it could still be challenged as WP:RECENTISM. My advice would be to not go here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Original Six era[edit]

The second paragraph under "The Original Six era" historical heading tends to blame the Detroit Red Wings organization--and the Norris family ownership of Chicago Stadium--for the Black Hawks' competitive ineffectiveness. The following is written without footnoted sources:

"Owner and founder Frederic McLaughlin died in 1944. His estate sold the team to a syndicate headed by longtime team president Bill Tobin. However, Tobin was only a puppet for James E. Norris, who now owned the rival Red Wings. Norris had also been the Black Hawks' landlord since his 1936 purchase of Chicago Stadium. For the next eight years, the Norris-Tobin ownership, as a rule, paid almost no attention to the Black Hawks. Nearly every trade made between Detroit and Chicago ended up being Red Wing heists. As a result, for the next several years, Chicago was the model of futility in the NHL. Between 1945 and 1958, they only made the playoffs twice."

What are needed here are footnoted sources of documents, quotes, and other written proof to: 1) Establish that Bill Tobin, as the operative owner of the Chicago Black Hawks, was indeed an agreed provider of lopsided player transactions to the J. E. Norris ownership in Detroit; 2) demonstrate that the Black Hawks faced the threat of eviction from Chicago Stadium if the team didn't service the Red Wings organization with such sweetheart player trades, and; 3) provide transaction information of such player moves, to provide documentation of the so-called "heists". Without these sources, I raise the assertion that the quoted above context is mostly conjecture and heresay; and I would greatly welcome documented support for the asserted content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.232.143 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I think what this article says differs from one location to the next, for example the infobox shows no alternate jerseys, whereas the jerseys section refers to the old black alternates that haven't been used in awhile. Belugaboycup of tea? 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read further in the Jerseys section it mentions that their 3rd jersey has been retired so now there are only the home and away jerseys which is why they are the only two in the infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Blackhawks have three uniforms. They wear black uniforms based off their Winter Classic jerseys.[1] They also have a green jersey they only wear at home games on Saint Patrick's Day.[2] I'll try to update this information if I get the chance and can find better references. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned the Winter Classic third jerseys were retired after the 2010-11 season. As for the St. Pats jersey I have never seen them actually use that in game action but if you can find a source to mention it in the jersey section go for it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

National Anthem: Blackhawks Fans and the US Flag Code[edit]

Hi, this is my first attempt at a Talk Page ourside my own, so I hope I do this right.

The Blackhawks page has a section about the National Anthem because it is noteworthy that the Blackhawks fans Tradition is differently than "normal" Tradition in America as defined by the US Flag Code. Since this section is talking about the US Flag Code, it would be an improvement to add a link to WikiPedia's page on the subject.

I think many readers probably don't know what the US Flag Code is, and a link is a clear improvement.

Also, without identifying the contrast between the Blackhawks Tradition and American Tradition, it is pointless to even have that section.

The link that should be added is this one: [[3]]

Maybe some text like this would be appropriate? Please provide me with how you feel it should be worded. I don't want it to sounds like any POV, such as making a judgement about the differences, which some people obviously have but is not appropriate here.

Thanks!

Change this: "It is a tradition for Blackhawks fans to applaud and cheer loudly during the singing of the national anthem. This tradition originated during a 1985 Campbell Conference playoff game at Chicago Stadium versus the Edmonton Oilers.[46] Jim Cornelison currently sings the national anthem for all home games."

To this? "In deviation with the US Flag Code, it is a tradition for Blackhawks fans to applaud and cheer loudly during the singing of the national anthem. This tradition originated during a 1985 Campbell Conference playoff game at Chicago Stadium versus the Edmonton Oilers.[46] Jim Cornelison currently sings the national anthem for all home games." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdruid (talkcontribs) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that they are talking about a deviation from the flag code....but a deviation instead from the way its usually dealt with at hockey games. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
First off, thank you for finally bringing this here for discussion. Now, literally every event I have been to in the US where the anthem is played has featured numerous "deviations" from the US Flag Code. So the first question I have is: why is it important to even mention the Flag Code in this article? What makes this deviation special when compared to others? What reliable sources exist to indicate that the deviation itself is notable? Once we answer these questions, we can look at phraseology within the article. Resolute 17:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Chicago Blackhawks Easy Guide to the US Flag Code.png
To summarize, here's an image that's critical of the fan's behavior



Mattdruid (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


You're welcome. First of all, I'm a big Blackhawks fan and have been to many games, so I know this topic very well. The way that the Blackhawks fan's deviate from the US Flag Code is radically different then any other deviation you see at other sports teams in Chicago or elsewhere. The reason the US Flag Code's National Anthem topic is even noted currently on Wikipedia is a testament to how different it is. The US Flag Code defines the behavior expected while singing the National Anthem. So at very least, we should add a reference to the US Flag Code Wikipedia page.Mattdruid (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Radically different" is your point of view. Certainly I don't think applauding during the anthem is really any different than Dallas fans yelling out "STARS" or Capitals and Flames fans yelling "RED" at the appropriate moments (though, of course, US codes don't apply in Canada). That is beside the point, however, as in the two years you have been obsessing over this, you have never brought forth actual reliable sources to justify inclusion. Resolute 15:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. Every sporting event I have been to in the US people have hooted and hollered during the singing of the national anthem and have completely deviated from the flag code. To the point where I would think it was weird if fans at a sporting event didn't do it. I am not sure why its even mentioned in the article period. That whole sentence should probably just be removed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that the "deviation" they resort to is so much over-and-above what is normally done. In Chicago (from what I've seen on TV), it seems that most of the fans are making noise during the ENTIRE anthem, where as, at most sporting events, there is SOME noise during the majority of the song, but the vast majority is reserved for the end. As far as fans of the other teams mentioned above yelling "STARS," "RED," or as I've noticed Orioles fans yelling "O" for the "Oh, say does that..." they are more emphasizing certain parts of the anthem, instead of randomly cheering through the whole song. These are all "Deviations" from the flag code, but I think the point of including it in THIS article is that it is a different KIND of deviation. I don't have an opinion either way as to weather this section should be in the article or not, I'm just adding what I think they are referring to. -Num1dgen (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I think this is about as trivial as the detailed mascot info some people try to shoehorn in. There are vast amounts of Chicago on-ice history that are missing from the article. Ken Wharram's heart attack in 1969 that forced his retirement after a thirty goal season? Not mentioned. The Black Hawks' first ever regular season championship, and the end of the "Curse of Muldoon?" A single freaking sentence. Their four Cup Finals appearances between their '61 Cup and the 1990s? Handled in three sentences. And Mattdruid wants to spend more time discussing people shouting through the National Anthem at home games than Stanley Cup Finals appearances? Ravenswing 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

2013 Stanley Cup Championship[edit]

I tried to do some digging but couldnt find enough answers, but if others could help out that would be great. I think the blackhawks are the only professional team to win a championship and visit the white house twice while the current president in office is from that teams home town. If we could look into this and add this fact at the end of the 2013 Stanley Cup section.

5-25-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefoot768 (talkcontribs) 03:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

while that is no doubt a possibly unique situation, tracking down this information in a reliable source will be tricky, and it's really over the line into trivial territory. Not to mention that they have not visited the White House yet of course, who knows when they will, so you can't even add it until it happens anyway, per WP:CRYSTAL. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Beyond that, while this is a stale discussion, the Montreal Canadiens won eight Stanley Cups during the period where Montreal native Pierre Trudeau was in office. Ravenswing 06:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

2013 Stanley Cup[edit]

Someone needs to change the wording of "Post lockout era" to Salary cap Era. That is the difference post 2005. The NHL has had two lockouts since 2004 and for clarity it would read better and make more sense for it to say salary cap era. The NHL will continue to have lockouts. True hockey fans will read this wording of post lockout era has humorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerCarlson (talkcontribs) 22:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. On reflection though, I simply removed the statement. Being the first team to win twice since an arbitrary date is rather trivial to me. However, if anyone wishes to reinsert it, but making KillerCarlson's change, feel free. Resolute 14:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Native American mascot controversy[edit]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-19/news/ct-met-indian-mascots-20130619_1_american-indians-black-hawk-mascots Maybe parts of the article could be used here? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. At present, this article seems biased in favor of the "it's not racist" argument.24.107.126.227 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Several editors for this page refuse to include the perspectives of various Native American activists and I'm wondering why. This is information that provides a valuable context for the controversy.192.17.201.142 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a link to Native American mascot controversy as well as coverage of how the team has responded. Why do we need to go into any more detail? Please read WP:UNDUE and thanks for taking this tho talk rather than edit warring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The recent view of the American Indian Center in Chicago, which has been called into question as disingenuous, receives considerable attention. One might infer from this that the majority of Native American activists approve of or are at least not opposed to the logo. This is most certainly not the case and I want this section to reflect that with the opinions of notable activists.192.17.201.142 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are their opinions so important? Again, we have a whole article on the controversy which I think is where such stuff might belong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC
The section at present provides an inaccurate representation of the current controversy. Without mention of the abundance of Native activist opinions denouncing the logo, we are left with a biased picture, separate from reality.192.17.201.142 (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are the opinions of those particular people so important? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I just said. The section is biased at present and paints a picture separate from reality.192.17.201.142 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────and, I asked why those people's opinions should be here. Do they represent a large number of people? Are they themselves notable? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes and yes.192.17.201.142 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Please prove that. Like I said, it may belong in the Controversies article more than here even if they and their opinions are notable. I would like to see what some other editors think as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
John Blackhawk is Chairman of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Suzan Harjo speaks for the Morning Star Institute, a Washington-based advocacy group, and the NCAI is an association of federally recognized and state recognized American Indian tribes.206.221.158.70 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strikes me that "biased" = "doesn't include the polemics I want" in this particular case. The reason people have been citing WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX is that this article isn't about your controversy, however invested you two (a look at your posting patterns and Geolocates suggest that these two IPs are in fact the same editor) claim to be in it. It's about a sports team that's been around for 90 years, and if we were going to be "fair" about it, we would give much greater weight to the opinion of the many hundreds of thousands of Chicago sports fans -- who badly outnumber, I fancy, the protesters. That the controversy is mentioned, and that there's a separate article discussing it (an article that is, as to that, nearly twice as long as this one), is as much as is required here. Ravenswing 00:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow. No sir, biased is ignoring the opinions of people actually knowledgable about the effects of the mascots. Many Blackhawks fans do not even know that Black Hawk was person, let alone know the documented negative effects these logos cause. An ignorant majority should not outweigh an informed minority in an intellectual society. All of the quotes I've mentioned are cited. It just so happens that it is very difficult to find a reputable source that defends the Blackhawks logo as non-harmful. The fact that you ignore this and espouse this "90 years" of tradition mentality shows your bias.206.221.158.70 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way, with your logic of majority rules, in Nazi Germany the Jewish people actually deserved to be discriminated against and shipped away to concentration camps, because the majority of German people believed this and they outweighed the minority. The same goes for African-Americans in the antebellum south.206.221.158.70 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
And if the controversy is mentioned here at all, which is most definitely proper, it deserves to be portrayed accurately.206.221.158.70 (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't suggest that you're at all interested in discussing this in a civil fashion, even if discussion with someone who'd stoop to such a sickening and absurd parallel was likely to prove productive. In any event, since Wikipedia policy prohibits propaganda or advocacy of a particular position, you're better off taking your bias to a blog or a forum, where you can ignore contradictory research all you please. Such as, for instance, the public stance of the American Indian Center, which states that they have no problem with the Blackhawks' name or logo, or the leadership of the National Urban Indian Family Coalition, which states that their outreach runs "70-30" in favor of the logo, or the Ojibwe leader who was part of the color guard at a Blackhawks playoff game. Or are you only interested in the viewpoints of Native Americans who agree with you? Would you claim them to be part of the "ignorant majority?" Ravenswing 05:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Classify it however you want, it is a valid analogy describing the flawed nature of the "majority rules" concept. Furthermore, as noted in my materials that were deleted, there is a strong suspicion among Native American activists that the AIC has changed its stance so rapidly to due to recent monetary contributions from the Blackhawks organization.[1] Moreover, as wikipedia itself states, with the proper citations of course:"A flaw unique to polls of Native Americans is they rely upon self-identification to select the target population. In an editorial in the Bloomington Herald Times, Steve Russell (an enrolled Cherokee citizen and associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University), states that both SI and Annenberg's samples of "self-identified Native Americans... includes plenty of people who have nothing to do with Indians".[2] The problem of individuals claiming to be Native American when they are not is well known in academic research, and is a particular problem when non-natives claim Indian identity specifically to gain authority in the debate over sports mascots." [3]206.221.158.70 (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't ignore contradictory research, I actually analyze it.206.221.158.70 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care how you classify my most recent statements. I only care about how you respond to them.206.221.158.70 (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, the new opinion of the AIC is already present on this page. Why can't the opinions of the Native American activists I've cited be present as well? Because you don't like their opinions? Wouldn't it be fair to include both? Or are you saying we should just not mention the controversy at all so as not to disturb the super fans.206.221.158.70 (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
And onto your last point, no they are not ignorant because they have devoted considerable time and energy to research this issue. Those who fulfill this prerequisite are logically better able to speak on said issue. Contrastingly, those who take no time to study the issue are at a disadvantage when it comes to an intellectual debate on said issue.206.221.158.70 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not edit warring! No one has responded to this talk page for a while and I thought it was safe to make a new edit. But you, Dbrodbeck, are reverting my edits with little justification! Am I not allowed to change anything on wikipedia, even if I have explained in depth the reasons for my edit?206.221.158.70 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss this like you proposed, Dbrodbeck? 206.221.158.70 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no rush. You are one editor (using two IPs). I reverted the changes as is common (see WP:BRD. As the changes might be controversial it seems sensible to discuss the changes on the talk page rather than just making edits. Please let's see what other editors think. I don't see a compelling reason to include the changes you have proposed. As I said, let's see what others think. My edit summary said that I was reverting undiscussed changes, which you then reverted. That actually is edit warring. Like I said, we are not in a rush. Policies and procedures can take time to learn, and can be frustrating. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You waited exactly seven hours before going ahead with your new spate of edits, which is not remotely a lengthy period. Beyond that, I suggest you review WP:CONSENSUS (as well as, generally, the links at WP:PILLAR, which would educate you better on Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Given that there is contention here, you need to get a consensus of editors supporting your POV to make further such changes. So far, your POV is supported by just you. Ravenswing 00:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There is certainly an argument that the pre-existing paragraph is poorly constructed and does push only one side of a debate. My initial revert was rooted in the basis that we don't need a multi-paragraph rebuttal based on the views of a couple apparently random opponents. Particularly given the mascot/logo controversy has not centred around the Blackhawks much at all (yet). I think, 206, that a good compromise for now would be a one paragraph summary of perhaps the existing AIC commentary (pared down a little) coupled with the NCAI's position would be sufficient for this article at this time, particularly with the hat note to the main controversy article there for more detail. Would you be willing to propose such a paragraph on this talk page for discussion? Resolute 18:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I am the major editor of the article Native American mascot controversy. I make no claim of ownership to the topic, it has only been necessary for me to contribute well-researched content from reliable sources; no other editors have come forward to assist in improving the article during the almost three years I have been working on it. I have not expanded by editing to include the articles on the individual teams with the exception of Washington, which receives most of the attention and also because I have lived my entire life in DC. After surveying the content of the other articles I do not think there is a need for extensive coverage as long as there is a link to the controversy article. This will make it easier to maintain the information since it is dependent upon news coverage of ongoing discussions and changes. In addition to the "hat note" there should be a summary of the basic facts presented by the main article: Native American mascots have been condemned as a form of racism by not only the NCAI but many Native American tribes and organizations, and the reason for this condemnation has been substantiated by social science research. This has resulted in resolutions being passed by the professional organizations representing the academic disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, counseling, and history) to also condemn all Native American mascots as harmful. What individuals on either side say in newspapers is hardly noteworthy by comparison.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there is contention, here is the content that I propose adding to this, and the other sports team articles:

The use of Native American names, images and symbols is often discussed in terms of offensiveness of particular instances, which reduces it to feelings and opinions of individuals, and prevents full understanding of the history and context of these practices and why they should be eliminated.[4] Social science research says that sports mascots and images, rather than being mere entertainment, are important symbols with deeper psychological and social effects.[5] The accumulation of objective research on the harm done has led many professional organizations representing civil rights, educational, athletic, and scientific experts to adopt resolutions or policies that state that any use of Native American names and/or symbols by non-native sports teams is a form of ethnic stereotyping that promotes misunderstanding and prejudice which contributes to other problems faced by Native Americans.[6][7]

The first objection I anticipate is that this is "off-topic" because the Blackhawks are not mentioned specifically. However, this is the point; a scholarly, encyclopedic, and neutral point of view often requires such contextualizing in order to avoid trivializing a topic. FriendlyFred (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • That would indeed be my objection to that paragraph; that it's a generic statement much more appropriate to the main mascot controversy article than one applicable to any one sports team. A paragraph's worth for this article should cite organizations specifically (and explicitly) objecting to the Blackhawks name and logo, and cite research which specifically (and explicitly) pertains to the alleged harm the Blackhawks name and logo has caused. Given the main controversy article, a generic disclaimer dropped into this article pushes into WP:COATRACK country. Ravenswing 04:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Same here. It would be WP:OR to do that right? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  1. If large organizations such as the NCAI and the APA both state that all Native American mascots/names/images are harmful, how is it OR to state that the Blackhawks logo is part of the problem? That problem is not stated by scholars in terms of how individuals react to a logo presented neutrally; it is how people tend to think unconsciously about Native Americans as a result of seeing these images everywhere, and the behaviors that result. Blackhawks fans attend games in face paint and feathers, acting out and legitimizing stereotypes, and fans of opposing teams occasionally attack the Blackhawks as did this guy, although less blatantly.
  2. A single research study of the Blackhawks would be a primary source, while the journal articles and books I cite are all peer-reviewed, secondary sources, the best support for a NPOV.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is about this hockey team. It is not about all sports teams with First Nations' names/logos. We have a link to the controversy article, where that stuff belongs I think. Much the way that the ice hockey article itself mentions how hockey can be a really dangerous sport. We don't add that to hockey articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The current content in the logo section should then be removed, since it is wp:synth, implying that because the Blackhawks are trying to be respectful they are an exception from the controversy. The content I proposed would provide the context that would remedy this, but if it is not allowed then only the link to the full article should remain.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You are presenting a false dichotomy. And I agree with the other objections. Your proposed paragraph merely pushes the opposite POV to what exists currently. Therefore it does not represent a 'fix' for this article. This article is about the Blackhawks, not one position held in a larger dispute over the use of Native logos. Any discussion of this issue on this article should be specific to how it relates to the Blackhawks. The current material already represents the pro-usage position. What we need to add is a representative example of the anti-usage position. 206 already provided some Chicago-specific sources. Resolute 20:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry but you do not appear to understand what I am saying: the academic consensus represented in peer-review journals and books is not the other side of an argument, it is the NPOV that should be represented in any WP article when it exist. For this issue, it does exists, and it is that all Native American names, mascots and images are a form of racial stereotyping that should be eliminated. This is not an ivory tower liberal opinion, but is also the position of the largest Native American organizations. The biased opinions of individuals published in local newspapers (whether pro or con the Blackhawks logo) are nothing more than background noise by comparison, and making them equivalent violates WP:undue. If the consensus of the editors of a particular article is that the topic is purely about this team, then rather than present this biased POV, it should say nothing at all about the larger issue, but only link to the full article.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  1. National Native American organizations and leaders oppose the Blackhawks' logo for the same reason they oppose all other Native mascots. At least one sports writer, Damien Cox agrees.
  2. There is currently a relationship between the American Indian Center of Chicago (AIC), in which the team is working to educate the fan community, and the Center now supports the team. (There should be details of what this entails? Activities during games?)
  3. However one Native American leader implies that the AIC support of the team is a change from recent opposition prompted by charitable contributions by the team to the AIC.
  • The balance is towards Native American opposition, which is the balance of the controversy article. The Blackhawks' section in the controversy article could be summarized in this article. The opposition by Harjo and the NCAI, currently missing here, would need to be added. If no summary could be agreed upon I would be satisfied with removing any content on the controversy in this article and retaining only the link.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Like it or not, Native American opponents are not the only people with opinions, and not the only ones who deserve to have their opinions covered. Your arguments, both here and in your writing at the other article are pushing only one set of opinions. Indeed, you've done a good job of trivializing one group that currently supports the logo. What does the public at large think? What views have the team itself expressed? How significant are the Hawks specifically in relation to the mascot/logo debate as a whole? I am not certain how deep I want to get into this debate overall, but based only on how you've written the Blackhawks section of that article, I am inclined to slap an POV banner on it. And I generally support the movement to change some of these names and logos. Resolute 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not presenting my likes or dislikes, or anyone else's. There is peer-reviewed science that supports the NCAI and Susan Harjo, and non that is pro-mascot. In a WP article, this should end any debate. There have been POV discussions on the controversy articles already, and none have been sustained. FriendlyFred (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) So, if the consensus is that this article is only about the team, then there should be no mention of the controversy other that the link to the section of the controversy article.FriendlyFred (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "peer reviewed science" as it relates to opinion and viewpoints. Also, That is the second time you have trotted out the "do it my way or remove all discussion" canard. If it happens a third time, I will be done with this discussion. It is very clear that you are only here to push an agenda. Resolute 14:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Concur ... "peer-reviewed science?" Seriously? That startling assertion aside, yes, this article is only about the team ... as it should be. Every article should be solely about the subject. The mascot controversy is worth mentioning here only in so far as there are direct references to the Blackhawks, and any attempt to coatrack in more general diatribes that don't explicitly mention the subject of this article must be reverted. Ravenswing 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Denying the status as peer-reviewed science to a major division of human knowledge (the behavioral and social sciences) in order to preserve the inclusion of biased opinion goes beyond anything I could have imagined occurring on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of my assertion: limiting content to what is currently in the article gives the impression that there is one journalist opposed to the logo, and the American Indian Center thinks its ok. By SYNTH, this implies it is a matter of personal opinion. Yet I am barred from saying that the social sciences prove, using many peer-reviewed studies (see notes below), that opinions are biased; images of Native Americans in sports promote harmful stereotypes. Better to say nothing, which I do not like but would accept.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless the Blackhawks are the only sports team being scrutinized, then I don't agree with adding this controversy so prominantly to this article. Better to simply add the Blackhawks to the 'controvery' article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have some expertise in psychology. I have looked at the Charles Fruehling Springwood paper, it is basically an opinion piece, and it is from 2004. The Stephanie A. Fryberg paper is a primary study, not a review, The King book is a book, not a journal article that is peer reviewed, The APA resolution mentions the 'scarcity of scientific evidence', and the others are not scholarly. I'm not saying scholarly is important, I'm saying that calling this an open and closed issue where the science is done, is not illustrated by these examples. These are indeed mostly opinions. Opinions that I in fact share for the most part, but they are first off not specifically about the Chicago Blackhawks, and opinions based not on data are just opinions. (There are data there in that one paper, but, it is a primary source, we can't evaluate primary sources, we rely on secondary sources to do that.) Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I only have an MA, not a PhD, but think I can read journal articles with some level of expertise. The five sources I cited are but the tip of the iceberg compared to those in the controversy article. After three years of reading and writing on the topic, I have become a very specialized expert. I began with no opinion, not being a sports fan of any kind, and being 99% northern European ancestry.
I searched the 2005 APA resolution both visually and by computer for the phrase 'scarcity of scientific evidence' and did not find it. I find it difficult to believe that an organization currently representing about 135,000 psychologists would issue such a strongly worded statement calling all mascots a form of racism on scarce evidence, and that subsequently the similar organizations representing sociologists, anthropologists, school counselors, and historians would issue similar resolutions. This is about as close to unanimous consensus as anyone will find in the social sciences. (And yes, there are sciences that do peer-reviewed studies on how people form opinions. I have read many, all of which say that mere exposure to Native mascots lead to stereotypical thinking, which promotes bias towards Native Americans). Science is never "done" so that is no criticism. The question is whether the opinions of so many academics should be omitted while including the opinions of a few individuals. This is not only false balance but SYNTH because it implies that it is a matter of purely subjective opinion, particularly since this article currently includes only the opinion of one white journalist and one Native American. This plays directly into one of the mascot supporter's favorite claims: it is just PC from guilty liberals, but Indians don't care.
I do not understand the insistence that the only references that can be included are those that mention the Blackhawks specifically. What is unclear about "all Native American names, images and mascots promote harmful stereotypes" including the Blackhawks logo? However, this is from a position paper from the NCAI in 2013: Often citing a long held myth by non-Native people that "Indian" mascots "honor Native people," American sports businesses such as the NFL’s Washington "Redsk*ns" and Kansas City "Chiefs", MLB’s Cleveland "Indians" and Atlanta "Braves", and the NHL’s Chicago Black Hawks, continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place.[8] Should the article give only the opinion of one local Native American leader, or that of the largest Native American organization in the US?
But as I have said, I do not want to bother adding anything to any sports team article except for the Washington team. I only proposed doing so because the article already had some content on the controversy when I encountered it. The problem with the current content here can be easily resolved by removing it, keep only the link to the controversy article, and go back to talking about nothing but hockey.FriendlyFred (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The link you provided, number 2 under 'notes' below says, and this is copied and pasted 'Of most concern to those opposed to the adoption of the resolution was the scarcity of scientific evidence of the harm perpetrated on American Indian and Alaska Native people by the use of Native-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos'. Our respective credentials, or the lack thereof, don't matter. You have said the science is clear, and what you have provided does not say that. And with that, I'm done commenting on this matter. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The confusion is there are two APA documents, the 2005 resolution and a 2010 commentary on it. I rely on the former as a clear statement of consensus. Does not mean unanimity, there are always some that think an issue needs more study.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Convenience break[edit]

I think you are still missing the point, FriendlyFred. The point is that on this article, viewpoints that relate specifically to the Chicago Blackhawks should be the focus. Your original proposed rewrite did not focus on the Hawks at all, and instead used it as a coatrack to promote your other article. In this case, we can take the quote from your NCAI position paper and rewrite into something like "The NCAI believes that all Native-themed nicknames, including Blackhawks, 'continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place.'" That sentence takes their position, focuses it on Chicago, and quotes their opinion as they present it. But that is only one sentence reflecting one aspect of this. It total, I don't think this warrants more than two paragraphs on the entire topic for this specific article. The (apparently) current position from the AIC that presently exists in the article would represent a positive view from a Native organization. Though if the consensus of Native groups is that the logo is bad, then we should state and cite that, allowing for the AIC comment to be viewed as dissenting opinion. But that is just one part of this. What I would also like to see is a statement on the common public opinion of the logo and nickname - because yes, opinions beyond those of Native groups merit inclusion - and any specific statement from the team. Those are also useful for a complete picture of how Chicago fits into the controversy. Once we have those elements, we can craft a passage that summarizes Chicago's place in this. Resolute 16:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is going in circles, and I have better things to do. Activity is stirring in the articles that interest me more. FriendlyFred (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free. Ravenswing 03:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Can we go ahead and add this sentence to the article, Reso: "The NCAI believes that all Native-themed nicknames, including Blackhawks, 'continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place.'"? It would make the logo section less biased. 206.221.158.70 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just made some edits consistent with suggestions made on this page. Do you approve, Reso? 206.221.158.70 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
While I'm still not sure about some of the overall composition, that does look a little better to me, thanks. Resolute 23:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015[edit]

It should say they won there fifth and sixth stanley cups Godzillacraft (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

All fixed. - Floydian τ ¢

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/19/wearing-someone-elses-culture-more-chicago-blackhawks-149980
  2. ^ http://www.iupui.edu/~mstd/e320/amerind/flap.html
  3. ^ Springwood, Charles (February 2004). ""I’m Indian Too!": Claiming Native American Identity, Crafting Authority in Mascot Debates" 28. Journal of sport and social issues. p. 56.
  4. ^ C. Richard King (2010). "Introduction". In C. Richard King. The Native American Mascot Controversy: A Handbook. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-6731-4. 
  5. ^ Stephanie A. Fryberg (September 2008). "Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences of American Indian Mascots". Basic and applied social psychology. 30 (3): 208. 
  6. ^ "Legislative efforts to eliminate native-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos: Slow but steady progress post-APA resolution". American Psychological Association. August 2010. Retrieved January 23, 2013. 
  7. ^ "National Coalition Against Racism in Sports and Media". Retrieved October 3, 2014. 
  8. ^ "Ending the Legacy of Racism in Sports & the Era of Harmful Indian Sports Mascots". NCAI. Retrieved September 23, 2015. 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017[edit]

change owner name to Pekka Rinne McEllis82 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not a repository of jokes. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete the quoted text below from the introduction: "are a group of impostors who supposedly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italian stallion (talkcontribs) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chicago Blackhawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)