Talk:Native American mascot controversy/Archive 4

Repetition of reference
After many years of editing this GA, I have never repeated a reference for each sentence in a paragraph when the citation clearly applies to the whole. This practice has never been questioned by any other editor. I have modified some recent edits to remove the repetitions, and while I was at it changed the ref names to "author.date" which is less likely to create problems in future edits that random naming.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Rewording opening paragraph
Some clarification needed, in particular that offense is taken not due to names such as "Indians" but due to the inappropriate context of sports and the stereotyping that follows.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Braves in the 2021 World Series
The appearance of the Braves is a significant event in the context of the Cleveland and Washington decisions to end their racist traditions, and needs to be mentioned here as well as in the linked article. Summarizing is not a reason to delete content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added new content to the Braves section, removed some 2020 details that are less relevant.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdb337.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination?
Why is this article part of the "Discrimination" series? The naming controversy isn't discriminatory? It's offensive, insensitive, stubborn, etc. Teams and players that use Native and First Nation monikers are not being discriminated against. As far as I know none of the team naming was done for the purposes of discrimination. I've made my point, but I don't have an answer of what category this should be grouped with. Asherkobin (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Discrimination is defined as prejudicial treatment. This article documents that prejudice in great detail.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Image caption
I changed the caption added of the Chiefs section to be relevant to the image. There is already content on the effects of the Washington name change for the Chiefs, so nothing more was needed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

New York tells schools to drop Native American mascots
School districts across the state of New York are prohibited from using any Native American mascots, team names or logos. And the state's education department is now urging its school comply by the end of the school year — or risk losing state aid. Source.

I'm not sure where to put this in the article; thought I'd start here. Kire1975 (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have already begun updating the linked article Native American mascot laws and regulations. Some of the first news reports on the current situation have been incorrect or oversimplified, so I am referencing only the official state documents. The section in this article on Legal and administrative action needs to be updated also, and I plan to do so.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Revision completed--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant half of paragraph
Under "Financial impact of change":


 * Opponents feel that despite the cost of a change in team mascots, it should be done to prevent what they believe is racial stereotyping. Clyde Bellecourt, when director of the American Indian Movement stated: "It's the behavior that accompanies all of this that's offensive. The rubber tomahawks, the chicken feather headdresses, people wearing war paint and making these ridiculous war whoops with a tomahawk in one hand and a beer in the other; all of these have significant meaning for us. And the psychological impact it has, especially on our youth, is devastating."

This isn't "Financial impact of change", and should be moved to another section, esp. since it's not really discussing the financial aspect (remove the words "despite the cost of a change in team mascots," and see). I think a counterpoint should be included, but this isn't it. I don't know where to move these lines though, but they shouldn't be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.12.226 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

 * I disagree with your reversion of my recent edit, which clearly identifies the author and publisher of an alternative view of the topic. Given that this article presents the masses of opinion on the majority and academically supported side, is there any reason the right wing nuts should not be given a few sentences? WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because if their opinions are significant, they'll be in RSes. And look, there's National Review! We don't put in non-RSes for this purpose. We note viewpoints insofar as they're covered in RSes, documented to those RSes. See WP:FALSEBALANCE - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Article size, summary style
The article has been steadily creeping up in size. A remedy is likely applying summary style more aggressively; moving content to the many linked articles and keeping a minimum here. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)