Talk:Native American mascot controversy/Archive 3

Inclusion of EMU incident
An incident where Eastern Michigan U. students demonstrated in 2015 that there remains an attachment to a mascot removed in 1991 is very relevant to the topic of this article, which is the public controversy regarding mascots. If this is not worthy of inclusion, then the topic is not worthy of being part of WP, and should be deleted.FriendlyFred (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be some places where this article could use a trim, but in this specific instance I agree with FriendlyFred that the incident is worth including as an example of continued resistance, in some quarters, to the general trend to drop Native American mascots. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of compromise, I retained the student objection and deleted the rest while retaining the reference. Although there are undoubtedly many examples of students objecting to eliminating these nicknames or mascots, they do not warrant inclusion as Wikipedia is "not everything".  I agree with Arxiloxos that this article needs trimming as it has become bloated in the past few years. Sandcherry (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The change implied something the source did not support, which is hardly an improvement to the article. I have simply paraphrased the source, and do not understand why this cannot remain.FriendlyFred (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion from history section
I have restored material that was taken from an APA document that is a justification of that organization's 2005 Resolution on native mascots, and an article by two Native American scholars entitled "Stereotypes in sports, chaos in federal policy". I cannot imagine how a paragraph providing this historical context can be called "off-topic" unless the criteria is that the word mascot must appear in any sentence used.FriendlyFred (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

POV edits
The insistence upon a personal interpretation of what is trivial/off-topic becomes a POV unless supported. I have spent a great deal of time researching this topic and adding cited material to the article. I would welcome thoughtful collaboration, but am not willing to have anything deleted without discussion leading to a consensus.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The items that Sandcherry insists upon deleting or gutting:

FriendlyFred (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The two sentences in the History section that place the topic in historical context, the first taken from a document published by the American Psychological Association to explain that organization's 2005 resolution calling for the elimination of Native American mascots, images, and symbols in sports. The second is from an article by two Native American scholars in an article connecting mascots to the historic failures to respect treaties. How can this possibly be seen as off-topic? The topic is not trivial, and cannot be understood without this historical context.
 * 2) The same is true with regard to the section on opinion polls. Some of the criticisms of polls regarding mascots applies to all polls. A few words providing context are not off-topic.
 * 3) The citation of the EMU incident based upon a local news report: I find the mere fact that some student continue to identify an Hurons after 24 years very significant, however I cannot speculate upon the meaning of the incident. All that can be done within WP guidelines is summarize the facts as I have recently done. Perhaps those facts are too graphic for some, but I see no alternative.
 * I suggest you read "Ownership of articles".Sandcherry (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the above sound like claiming ownership? I am asking for discussion/collaboration/consensus rather than edit warring.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Being active in developing a page doesn't justify accusations of ownership.
 * Giving context in the history section seems entirely appropriate, and I'm not really seeing how it would be considered off-topic. This is a long, complicated article, so providing sourced context, which is central to the whole topic, seems useful and appropriate. The specific wording could stand to be adjusted for neutrality, but I don't think blanking is an improvement.
 * The information on sampling bias, however, seems like WP:SYNTH, as the Slate article on opinion surveys doesn't even mention Native Americans, much less mascots. In that case, linking to sampling bias or something would be more appropriate.
 * The Huron incident could probably be phrased a bit more concisely, but "some students continue to object to the change" is so vague it's basically euphemistic, and misses the point of the source.
 * Whatever happens, it would be better to talk about it or go to WP:RFC or something rather than edit war. But everyone already knows that, right? Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you seem to agree with my points 90%. I have been editing this article for years with little substantive input from others. At this point 80% of the content was written by me. But rather than feeling ownership, I would welcome thoughtful collaboration. It is a complex topic, and I recognize the limits of working alone. There are always improvements that can be made. I have looked at the article again, and have made changes to clear away some real trivia, update items with recent news, and yesterday merging two sections on the NCAA that had redundancies, all things that Sandcherry could have done rather than deleting material that he decided, apparently upon a superficial reading, were trivial or off-topic. The Huron incident is shocking but significant, and I do not know how to include it other than directly from the source without either wp:OR or wp:weasel words. The problem with the polling section is that there are issues with polls that are apparently misunderstood by those that want to draw conclusions from mascot-specific polls. The Slate article was the most accessible source describing those issues: sampling bias due to low response rates and the switch to cellphones. Perhaps I can find another source that is related to the article topic, but it is likely to be academic and not so accessible.FriendlyFred (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Taking an academic source and summarizing it into a more accessible form seems like a great thing for a Wikipedia article to be doing. Sampling bias issues regarding phones are as old as phones ("As Maine goes, so goes Vermont") so the connection to this issue should be expressly spelled out by sources. It's not a big deal, but I don't think that the Slate source should be used here. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Independent review requested
I requested an independent review of this article by two neutral and experienced editors. It is hoped their review will be the basis for improvements to the article. Sandcherry (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What mechanism is being used for this request? (I have previously attempted to stimulate interest in the article by posting on discussion pages, to no avail.)FriendlyFred (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly why aren't FriendlyFred or I neutral? Nevermind, don't answer that. No disrespect to them, but picking two and only two other editors based your own assessment of their neutrality and experience seems like it's flirting with WP:CANVASSING a little. Since you haven't really bothered to respond to the active discussion on the talk page above, it seems premature, as well. If you want to actually propose edits rather than edit war, or make actionable suggestions, that would be welcome. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi - Fred posted on my talk page. Is this diff the only point of contention between editors here? I think surely some sort of mutually acceptable compromise can be hammered out. Neutralitytalk 03:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no contention, a consensus has been reached by the participants in this discussion.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplifying by coordinating content of related articles
Since I edit this article and two others with related content, I am making an effort to simplify things for me and the readers by placing detailed content in the appropriate place and replacing details with wikilinks.

For example:
 * Washington Redskins name controversy has a section on the origin and meaning of the name, but the details are in Redskin (slang)
 * Washington Redskins name controversy is a summary of Native American mascot controversy

False balance
The recent activity here has drawn me back after some time mainly editing another related article, and reading books on entirely different subjects. I also agree that this article needs a lot of work, but for entirely different reasons.

After almost three years of research and writing it is obvious to me that there is no controversy from a neural point of view, which means that this article is an example of WP:False balance. The opinions of sports fans, team owners and a tiny handful of (conservative) journalists, all sourced from newspapers, are placed upon equal footing with facts presented by dozens of PhDs published in peer-reviewed journals. Add to this the resolutions passed by the American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, and American Anthropology Association; it should be clear to anyone that there is as close to a unanimous scholarly consensus as any topic in the social sciences is likely to receive.

That consensus is that native mascots and the behaviors that surround them are an expression of harmful biases (prejudice) that perpetuate the stereotypical thinking upon which those biases are based. While the led section makes the statement that the academic point of view is in opposition to Native American mascots, the very existence of a "support" section is to me problematical in the same way that any "science denial" section would be in a scientific article. It implies that there is a debate between equally valid positions, which is not the case.

The alternative is to write an entirely new article using only unbiased references, an option I have considered. FriendlyFred (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Finished Phase I, reorganization of existing content. Separation of Perspectives (pros and cons) from Trends (real life details).FriendlyFred (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The changes look good, thank you. I hadn't really thought about it that way, but you're right, defense of Native mascots is in several ways a WP:FRINGE perspective. As such it makes sense to explain both positions only to the extent that they define the controversy.
 * It might be worth considering renaming the article. Native American sports mascots is currently a redirect here, and that seems to me like a good candidate. I'm not sure about that, but it's worth considering. It would be a more encompassing title, but it's also downplaying that this has been very controversial, both currently and historically. Grayfell (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are conflating two different things, the controversy itself and the social science around the harm etc caused by the mascots. In the actual controversy of whether the mascots should stay or go the opinions of the people supporting the mascot would be of equal footing to those who do not based simply on how it is a major viewpoint on the subject (thus not false balance). However, when it comes to the science of issue, then scholarly sources are great. But this article is about (based on the name) the controversy surrounding the mascots, not the science of whether or not the mascots are good or bad. They are two related but distinct subjects. If you are not going to talk about the controversy by covering all the sides in their appropriate weight then you should move the article to a name that indicates it is just about the harm that such mascots cause. -DJSasso (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While I was tentatively positive on renaming the article, splitting the article seems like its asking for trouble. I don't think the science of the issue should be artificially separated from the controversy. The academic sources are covering the controversy and its effects, and there would be little scholarly attention if this weren't controversial. So splitting the article would leave one article about the academic discourse, and one about the popular and political debate? Maybe. It's been done for other controversies, but that seems like it's flirting with being a WP:POVFORK. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about either a rename or a split for some time as the article developed and the more reliable sources supporting academic and professional opinions overwhelmed the content. If the split were modeled on other controversies, the Global warming article is about the science but Global warming controversy is mostly about the science also, and while it gives "both sides" the POV is clearly in favor of the science, which is required to avoid POV forking. This article is about such a tiny controversy by comparison I do not see that such a split is warranted, and would leave the academic article orphaned, and likely under constant attack for not giving the other side. The recent reorganization of the content into perspectives rather than a simple pro/con was my solution to some of these issues. However the topic is controversial, so a title that does not say so is also problematical. A rename was discussed in 2013 at the top of this page, and it did not fly.
 * There seems to be a basic disagreement here about what false balance, and due and undue weight mean. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Creating an article giving equal coverage to those that see the harm based upon highly reliable sources and those that think mascots are harmless reported in newspapers is certainly a false balance, given that the latter are generally sports fans, players, and team owners. I think I have been a diligent and unbiased researcher, and have never found single academic source that does not support mascot change. A majority of the general public can be wrong about a topic, as they are with this one, in which case the experts cited, while a numerical minority, represent the NPOV.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again you are saying the majority of the public can be wrong about a topic. But that isn't the point. This article based on its title is about the controversy itself. Thus there is no right and wrong, there is just describing the controversy itself. Thus all the major viewpoints must be covered, those of the native community, those of the community at large, and those of the teams so that an accurate picture of what the controversy is about can be seen. The science (or lack thereof considering the APA itself has said there is little scientific evidence) is a completely separate mater. And be aware that reliable sources are not considered to only be academic journals etc. Newspapers are considered reliable sources, thus they need to be equally considered when writing about topics depending on the context, if you are describing the science itself, then yes the journals are stronger, however, when talking about the controversy itself and describing the varying opinions on the topic they hold as much or more weight because they discuss the reality of the public opinion. You may very well be diligent, I am not questioning your work ethic or anything. But I think you are confusing the controversy itself with the thing the controversy is about. I can't really comment on the global warming articles because while it is also a controversy, it is a hard science which can easily be proved/disproved and the controversy surrounding the mascots is soft science based which is not provable in the same way and is thus more heavily opinion based than fact based. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defers to verifiable expert opinions. The many sources here should be all the evidence you need that this is an academically addressable issue. If you don't believe that social sciences are relevant to social issues than your problem is with social sciences, not this article. Your statement that social sciences are "opinion based" is itself an opinion, an incredibly controversial one, and statements like that poison the well for future discussion. If you have specific newspaper sources you think should be used, or other specific changes you would like to see made, than maybe it's time to propose them. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not saying its not academically addressable, I was saying comparing this article to the global warming article is hard because they are two different types of science and because of that may need to be handled differently. My point about newspapers was in regards to the comment above that essentially stated all newspapers are bad and that only academic sources are valid. They aren't. Full stop. When writing about a controversy to leave out newspaper articles talking about the controversy, talking about any side of the controversy, or talking about the political aspects or what have you is problematic as they are very relevant and to do so ignores half of the controversy. As for poisoning the well...the continuous comments that the general public is wrong does that far more than anything I have said. Frankly my proposal is that this whole page needs to be blown up and redone. It is incredibly POV in that it completely trivializes at least three of the major camps in this controversy when it even bothers to mention them. Or the other option as you mentioned is to split the science from the political into two different articles. But as it stands this article is certainly not covering the controversy in a NPOV way. -DJSasso (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments about the general public's opinions of the use of Native American mascots are directly related to this article. Comments about the opinion-based nature of "soft" sciences are not relevant, and are outside of this topic. Looking at FriendlyFred's comments about newspapers, at no point do I see anything about newspapers being unusable. I interpret the comments to be saying, correctly, that the personal opinions of people with a financial interest and non-expert fans should not be presented as being equal to expert opinions. Expressing a preference for journals over newspapers is a far, far cry from "newspapers are bad". Again, what sources, newspaper or otherwise, would you like to see being used? Can you give a specific example? Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I referred to the other controversy articles as examples because they do cover all points of view, but are basically catalogs of why and how science deniers are wrong. Certainly climate science is easier to defend, but there should be no distinction between "hard" and "soft" science when making editorial decisions. As Grayfell points out, that would require editors to make decisions about the relative status of different fields of study, something we cannot do. (Scientists themselves may have opinions as to the relative status of their work, but they are not going to publish such opinions.) All sciences, whether physical or social, have schools of thought and theoretical disagreements. On WP, the only thing that editors can do is stick to the topic, and add content that reflects what the majority of experts on that specific topic have said in the most reliable sources. Can there be any question that on this topic, the expert view is currently reflected in the article? Can there be any doubt that any other point of view is based upon bias, the very same bias that is engendered by the stereotypes condemned? All of these other views have been mentioned here, but also rebutted by experts.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed?
A large number of "fact" tags were placed which include Given the lack of discussion before making these edits, and their appearing to be an example of drive-by tagging, I am in the process of removing most of them.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sentences that have citations
 * Simply incontrovertible facts not needing a citation
 * Sentences at the beginning of sections that summarize the cited material that follows, which improve readability
 * Sentences that linked to other articles which do (or should) contain citations (if missing, place the fact tag there)

HS Redskins
A reorganization of the Redskins section under secondary schools in the US, adding subsections and removing the list of retired Redskins, which is also maintained in a separate list article. FriendlyFred (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Article size and splitting
A GA review of the Washington Redskins name controversy has resulted in a ~67% reduction of that article by aggressively applying Summary style, condensing and splitting as needed. This article's size was mentioned in passing, and I would like to apply the same process if it improves readability and the likelihood that the average visitor would actually read the content rather than think WP:TL;DR. Splitting topics also makes it more likely that editors will not be intimidated by the complexity and work on maintaining and improving articles. I only wish someone had mentioned this before, rather than having the articles collect everything. I am an old-fashioned academic writer, so complexity and lots of citations are what I am accustomed to.

I have already split out Other Redskins sports teams which is an obvious sub-topic referenced here and in the other Redskins-related articles.

What is worthy of its own article? Is the entire section on Trends notable, or does it become a catalog of random public opinion with no NPOV? I have created a list article List of Washington Redskins name change advocates, would this be similar? FriendlyFred (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Split the NCAA section to its own article. FriendlyFred (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The next split would be from the Trends section. Perhaps one article for legal and administrative, another for schools? The separate articles could then explore the issues of free speech and "hostile learning environments" unique to these parts of the topic. Or a single article for all Trends, since the administrative includes school board action. There is little to say about the pro teams here since the two major controversies, Washington and Chief Wahoo have their own articles. FriendlyFred (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130218160526/http://www.michigan.gov:80/mdcr/0,4613,7-138--294605--,00.html to http://www.michigan.gov/mdcr/0,4613,7-138--294605--,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070630222030/http://www.racismagainstindians.org:80/UnderstandingMascots.htm to http://www.racismagainstindians.org/UnderstandingMascots.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Bias
This article (or at least its introduction) is hugely biased towards the campaigners for renaming. 86.139.250.85 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review
Since the related article Washington Redskins name controversy passed a GA review, I have wanted to improve this article. Its a bit long but I think it is worthy, and would like to stimulate interest in improvement. I began by removing detailed references to individual schools changing their mascots. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible split: The state law content of the Trends section could become an article entitled Native American mascot laws and regulations--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A week without comment, performed the split.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Preparing article for review, checking references.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Trying to get article length down by further summarizing content contained in linked articles and creating one for the Chicago Blackhawks. Moving content from lead section, which was very long.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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:
 * Added tag to http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive2001.asp?ptid=&story={B523D699-F44C-4D4E-818E-1BC26CC53821}&mid=3365
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604021444/http://www.dailyillini.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=7d161c2c-6bd4-466a-bffa-92e7825e264e to http://www.dailyillini.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=7d161c2c-6bd4-466a-bffa-92e7825e264e
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120221010322/http://www.lssaa.wisc.edu:80/aisas/policy07.html to http://www.lssaa.wisc.edu/aisas/policy07.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221184942/http://asanet.org/about/Council_Statements/use_of_native_american_nicknames_logos_and_mascots.cfm to http://www.asanet.org/about/Council_Statements/use_of_native_american_nicknames_logos_and_mascots.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915125336/http://counseling.org/docs/resolutions/resolutions-2001-present.pdf?sfvrsn=2 to http://www.counseling.org/docs/resolutions/resolutions-2001-present.pdf?sfvrsn=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161204135245/http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production/public/FileDownloads/pdfs/issues/press/upload/Sports-Mascot-Resolution-Release-Final.pdf to https://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production/public/FileDownloads/pdfs/issues/press/upload/Sports-Mascot-Resolution-Release-Final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031232424/http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-hidden-brain/201003/native-american-imagery-sports-mascots-new-problem to http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-hidden-brain/201003/native-american-imagery-sports-mascots-new-problem
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121128103322/http://www.aistm.org/naacp_1999_resolution.htm to http://www.aistm.org/naacp_1999_resolution.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140920203639/http://woodtv.com/2014/09/18/saranac-schools-make-changes-to-mascot/ to http://woodtv.com/2014/09/18/saranac-schools-make-changes-to-mascot/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413145318/http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14497&LangID=E to http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14497&LangID=E
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423112932/http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-3-2.pdf to http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-3-2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203082502/http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/native-american-mascots-must-go to http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/native-american-mascots-must-go
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801010742/http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/29/quaker-indian-affairs-call-redskins-change-name-156099 to https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/29/quaker-indian-affairs-call-redskins-change-name-156099
 * Added tag to http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/sports/article_b76efcf1-9d5b-5a45-92f4-d4e4e17cbbf5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150328075846/http://www.mcac-naia.org/members.php to http://www.mcac-naia.org/members.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912045700/http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/09/11/state-funding-center-school-mascot-controversy/ to http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/09/11/state-funding-center-school-mascot-controversy/
 * Added tag to http://www.chieftain.com/news/3562480-120/bill-schools-mascots-american
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151009050450/http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28929723/colorado-governor-creates-task-force-native-american-mascots to http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28929723/colorado-governor-creates-task-force-native-american-mascots
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707092034/http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/madison-school-board-oks-ban-on-student-attire-with-indian/article_a3ff7f37-1b6c-5213-936d-2f70a91be78d.html to http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/madison-school-board-oks-ban-on-student-attire-with-indian/article_a3ff7f37-1b6c-5213-936d-2f70a91be78d.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220151558/http://www.timesnews.net/News/2007/05/10/Tennessee-Senate-approves-measure-that-would-protect-Indian-mascots to http://www.timesnews.net/News/2007/05/10/Tennessee-Senate-approves-measure-that-would-protect-Indian-mascots
 * Added tag to http://stanfordreview.org/old_archives/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_4/Features/features2.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120054903/http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/tri/tricities.html to http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/tri/tricities.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Native American mascot controversy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630090119/http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300080674/playing-indian to http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300080674/playing-indian
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170406172232/http://www.centralmaine.com/2017/04/05/kkk-flyers-in-skowhegan-prompt-school-letters-renewed-angst-over-indians-mascot/ to http://www.centralmaine.com/2017/04/05/kkk-flyers-in-skowhegan-prompt-school-letters-renewed-angst-over-indians-mascot/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170118081335/http://archive.wfn.org/2001/03/msg00121.html to http://archive.wfn.org/2001/03/msg00121.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170301093515/http://globalnews.ca/news/3173209/swift-current-baseball-team-changes-name-from-indians-to-57s/ to http://globalnews.ca/news/3173209/swift-current-baseball-team-changes-name-from-indians-to-57s/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170510190041/http://www.indians.at/newHomepage/ to http://www.indians.at/newHomepage/%23

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Native American mascot controversy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103052217/http://www.njsbf.org/images/content/1/1/11134/Respect%20Winter%202003.pdf to http://www.njsbf.org/images/content/1/1/11134/Respect%20Winter%202003.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Swapping of content
I removed the content here regarding the "Washington Redhawks", which had no subsequent effect, and replaced it with a new statement by the NAACP.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Cite Templates
The changes to the "cite news" and "cite web" templates have required hundreds of edits to parameters that had been optional or flexible. About half done.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Citing an opinion
User:Sandcherry: A reliable source for financial information (Forbes) published a marketing expert's opinion regarding the continued use of Native American imagery using the cliche phrase "the wrong side of history". I see nothing to explain or discuss.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:CorbieVreccan for going back to the source to clarify rather than merely delete.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How does a marketing background qualify this expert to opine on the right or wrong side of history? Sandcherry (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A financial consultant is quoted in the financial section about the historical financial impact of racially- and culturally-insensitive mascots. By comparing past branding mistakes (mistakes because the companies lost money) to current ones, they are delineating a pattern and making a prediction based on historical precedent. It's clear if you read the source. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "wrong side of history" implies no expertise beyond the particular field being addressed. It is merely a way of saying something is out-of-date, sending a different message, certainly something a marketing expert knows about. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The section was revised to retain the marketing analyst's opinion and remove the nonspecific "wrong side of history" cliché. Sandcherry (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sandcherry - The wording by CorbieVreccan captures the source, which is the expert's opinion that continuing to use racial references for marketing in the 21st century is being "on the wrong side of history". It may be a cliché, but it captures the specific meaning intended, justifying the quote. Leaving it out implies a simple comparison between the "Frito Bandito" and mascots without historical context, which is an oversimplification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Split proposed
The section on the KC Chiefs may have reach a size warranting a split into a separate article, as with the Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, and Washington Redskins. An alternative would be to create a section in the team article for much of the content here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I Don't Appreciate Erasing Good Edits
Andrew wasn't even using "speculation" and was using timeline statistics on how close the season is and how it hurts the name change possibility for this year. Head Ron Rivera is even quoted in the Washington Post article which acknowledged a lack of communication with the Native American petitioners as stating the Redskins "wanted to continue “honoring and supporting Native Americans and our Military.” At times, defeat is hard to accept, but we all have to suck it up in order to get through life.Mancalledsting (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please rethink your approach, as veiled personal attacks and aspersions will eventually lead to a block. The opinion of Andrew Brandt (presumably not the same Andrew Brandt) would still need to be attributed as one opinion, in one podcast. Sources like this are very poor for demonstrating WP:DUE, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Likewise, Don Rivera's PR is not a neutral addition to the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, let us rethink the Neutral point of view policy. Comments like "Don Rivera's PR is not a neutral addition to the article" and "opinion of Andrew Brandt" do not demonstrate that you are cooperating with this policy. Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE as well. They only refer to using Wikipedia like a newspaper and undue weight. I'm afraid my proper edits with encyclopedic information were relevant enough to not be erased.Mancalledsting (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In my revert, I was using speculation in the specific meaning of predicting the future. No matter the expertise or reliability of the source, WP should not include anything about events that have not yet occurred. This is a GA, and already too large, so it does not need to include everything that will be mentioned in the coming months just because such predictions are the bread and butter of sports commentators. That a "review of the name" will be undertaken is a fact, its timeline and likely results are not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I needed a reason to follow the content guidelines stated above, it came in the form of an NBC report based upon a blog post based on a tweet from someone claiming inside information on the names being considered.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Trimming excesses
This article needs reduction in size for readability so I will give it a try, beginning with further reduction of details that can be found in linked articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Making progress towards the goal of ~125K.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "page size" tool shows the article as having a "Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8530 words) 'readable prose size'".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

K.C. Chiefs were named for Mayor Bartle and not Native Americans
Despite a history of using Native American mascots, arrows, and even the Tomahawk Chop, the team was actually named for "Chief" Bartle. What the Chiefs name less controversial is the fact that Bartle was also a civil rights champion who oversaw desegregation in Kansas City. The Native American stuff was clearly added over time.Mancalledsting (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The role of Bartle in the Chiefs naming was clear before the recent edits. I have done the split which I proposed in April, so its now a moot point anyway.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Cleanup of KC Chiefs section: there were four naked references which I converted to citation formats. In the process, it became clear that they said the same thing, or otherwise included details not needed in the summary of the team.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead Evaluation
Overall, this lead does a pretty good job describing the topic in a thorough yet concise manner, however there are several ways it could be improved as well. The lead mentions most of the article's major sections, but leaves out three important ones (Civil Rights / Religious Organizations / Legal Proceedings). The lead also has two places (the last sentence of the first paragraph, and the last sentence of the third paragraph) where a citation is not yet present. These sentences in essence say that the number of teams using a Native American mascot are declining, but do not back that up with a source. Fixing these two issues would improve the lead, but otherwise the information provided is relevant and thorough.

DylanElder (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Dylan Elder
 * I appreciate anyone taking an interest in this article. I have always followed the guideline WP:Manual of Style/Lead section, which states that when summarizing information in the body of the article that has citations, there is no need to repeat them in the lead unless the reader is likely to question them. The lead has remained as it is since the GA review, which mainly focused on its establishing notability and neutrality, rather than a preview of particular content. Do you have any specific suggestions for rewording?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When I responded, I did not know that you are an undergraduate doing an assignment, so my response reflects my assuming Good Faith. While anyone may make contributions, it would be best if students work on C class articles, as the assignment instructions stated.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC I appreciate your response to my evaluation. I am a new Wikipedian, and yes doing an assignment for a class, so I found your notes very helpful, specifically the links to the Citation Manual and Assuming Good Faith pages. As for rewording, I do have one suggestion for the last sentence of the lead. It starts off with the phrase "Although there has been a steady decline in the number of teams doing so" when referring to sports teams using Native American nicknames and logos. The words "doing so" don't really make sense here because that part of the sentence refers to using nicknames, not changing nicknames. What do you think about changing the sentence to: "Although the use of Native American nicknames and logos has steadily declined, they nevertheless remain fairly common in American and Canadian sports at all levels, from youth teams to professional sports franchises." This is just a minor grammatical change, but one that I think makes the sentence easier to read and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanElder (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)