Talk:Native American mascot controversy/Archive 1

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)
"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)
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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Essay

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

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)

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)

I endorse this removal. Corvus cornixtalk 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

i is annoying to repare the vandalism he has done--UkrNole 485 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
This is the article in question. Badagnani (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
("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)
Excellent idea. I'll put it that way and see what happens. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Someone altered it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My, that didn't take long - JohnInDC (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Sure; I think this might prove useful to the discussion. Thanks for asking. JohnInDC (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)


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)

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)

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)

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)
I'm afraid why this paragraph, giving context for such changes, was removed. Badagnani (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
Can the anon editor be specific about which statements s/he believes to be incorrect? Badagnani (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

Retract that remark immediately, or I'm taking you to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)

Change to history section

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

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)

Illinois won the game.

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

Can you elaborate? Badagnani (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
How is that relevant to the article though? Justinm1978 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Native American mascot controversy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Golden State Warriors no longer use a Native American "Warrior" as their mascot, instead they use a heavenly "superhero" type warrior named "Thunder" who wields a lightning bolt and lives in the clouds. They should not be included in this discussion any further unless it is to be said they changed their mascot to avoid appearing racist.
Agreed. To the best of my knowledge and research, the Golden State Warriors haven't used Native American imagery since 1971 (source: http://www.nba.com/history/uniforms_warriors.html), that's a full 36 years ago. While it maybe their past, it's behind them, and no longer a relevant team in the discussion of offensive mascots. -Colslax 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is good to have an example of ethical behavior among the professional teams, so it remains.FigureArtist (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_American_mascot_controversy/Archive_1&oldid=1173338811"