Talk:Tomahawk chop

Title
Is it "Tomahawk Chop" or "Tomahawk chop"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge
The "chop" and the "foam" tomahawk are 99% overlapped. Both articles are barely above stub level. There's little reason for two separate articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The gesture and the prop are somewhat different as foam tomahawks are made for other purposes. For example, there's a foam replica tomahawk made for Assassin's Creed fans.  The IP issues arising from the Braves case are quite substantial and so there's plenty of content to go round.  Andrew D. (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The two articles are barely above stub level and have considerable overlap. If there's due cause to split them in the future, that's fine, right now we have two articles for the sake of two credits at DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick query, does that mean you would deem inflatable banana a worthy article? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly someone does.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, but the content there is not a mass overlap with the content in these two articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? So no overlap there but there somehow is here? Are you sure?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. And even if there was, the supporters article is huge and it might be legitimate to create a spin-off article in such circumstances.  I don't think that article would survive an AFD, but I'm not interested.  And yes, these two articles can easily be merged.  As I've already pointed out a few times.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Do we merge The Poznan and Manchester City F.C. supporters for overlap too? No. The fact is that under WP:GNG, there is sufficient sources about the two individually that makes the case for them being separate. Besides to merge would violate WP:UNDUE as it would put the majority of the focus of the article on the foam tomahawk rather than the action as not all clubs who do the tomahawk chop use foam tomahawks.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing editor: The C of E (talk • contribs) is the creator of Foam tomahawk that is the subject of this merge proposal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the supporters article is vast, it's legitimate to fork out the information regarding the Poznan. In this case, both articles are barely above stub.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge. There is nothing to the foam tomahawk. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are both two completely different things. They don't belong in the same article.--SeminoleNation (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They're utterly related, and the one has basically no content. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true.--SeminoleNation (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the foam article has been split off to generate DYK credits for WIkiCup or some other contest. There's no legitimate reason for it to stand alone.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true. I do note you have also failed to commit the same focus to the inflatable banana example given above.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I responded, I committed the same focus. While you're here, could you tell me (for the third time of asking) which other spin-offs you've created for DYK credits please?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge. As a member of WP:BASEBALL, it is apparent that the tomahawk chop is the primary topic here.  The foam tomahawk article merely covers trivial paraphernalia derived from the primary topic. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge. The Foam tomahawk article is a fork.   There is zero need for two articles on this topic.   Montanabw (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The foam article covers areas that are not mentioned in the chop article.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The foam article is not about the same thing. I don't understand how this is still being debated.--SeminoleNation (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing editor: this is a duplicate second vote by SeminoleNation (talk • contribs) on the same issue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * not sure why you need to vote twice? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And actually, I don't think anyone's saying it's the "Same thing" but they are saying that it can easily be covered in one single article, hence "merge" rather than "delete". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge per above comments - the topic can and should be dealt with in one article, not two. BencherliteTalk 23:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge of Foam tomahawk to this article per above comments.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tomahawk chop. 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/20161010025014/http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/call-for-exeter-chiefs-rugy-club-to-drop-american-indian-theme/story-29572892-detail/story.html to http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/call-for-exeter-chiefs-rugy-club-to-drop-american-indian-theme/story-29572892-detail/story.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) 16:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Tomahawk Chop Origin Atlanta
I did some research a few weeks ago on the origin of the chop in Atlanta. The previous narative that was given here came from a New York Times article from October 1991 that gave credit to Deion Sanders. I pulled the archives from the local Atlanta papers and the first mention of the chop centered on Carolyn King. She was the organ player and her story has been consistent from the beginning. . King had played the chop music for awhile, but it caught on in 1991 when the crowds started showing up to the games. Before 1991, the team was very poor. There are secondary sources that point to Deion being the source, but I haven't seen a source that shows a definite link. If anyone finds more information please feel free to add it here, but I'm confident King is the source of how the chop started based on local reporting at the time.
 * , You reverted my edit without explanation. The current wording is just bizarre. There's no source that the New York Time "erroneously claimed." We have a conflicting story. The biggest Atlanta newspaper has reported on multiple occasions that it came from King who started playing the song before Deion playing for the Braves. Given the totality of the coverage it appears the only connection to Deion Sanders is purely speculative by people who never bothered to investigate the origin or ask Carolyn King. I've updated the wording to explain that the Sanders explanation is simply confusion based on timing and bad reporting. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it was so erroneous it was treated as fact until that came to light. IT is worth mentioning the Sanders/FSU connection.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Growing up in Tallahassee, it was always my understanding (and to be clear, I have no way to back this up, it's just the stories I heard) that the chop began at Rickards High School, who at the time had the mascot of the Redskins. Rickards band members graduated and joined the Florida State Marching Chiefs, and brought the chop with them to the college level. Florida State alumnus Deion Sanders then took it to the pro level with the Atlanta Braves. Nolefan32 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I worked as an official at FSU in the 1990s. In weekly staff meetings (sometime between 1995-1998), it was debated licensing the chant, song, and chop to (as I recall) the Washington Redskins, who requested it. There was some discomfort with the team's name, since FSU supports the Seminole tribe a great deal, etc. Regardless, the licensing deal was quickly nixed, a week or two later, and was explained to us by the woman in charge of the actual trademarks, insignia, and so forth. She said that the music was written by one of the former/retired (and deceased, as I recall) music professors at FSU. Neither he nor his surviving family had ever asked for royalties for the music; she brought the original sheet music to the meeting. She feared that licensing the chant could raise questions among the widow and surviving family members, and FSU didn't want to have to pay back arrears. So, that was why it was not licensed anywhere else. It may also be why the chop's origins remain murky. 144.17.243.105 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a source proving that the team's slogans change "year-to-year-
In the article I sourced, it was noted that a wooden "Chop On" sign stood outside the team's stadium. Being in the entrance way doesn't exactly suggest a year-to-year basis.InsulinRS (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a wooden sign. Not exactly the material you use for long term use. The sign had moved around. The motto has changed several times over the last ten years. Also, this is all speculation. There's no "evidence" that the team did this in response to the controversy. The article you call evidence is about the removal of a wooden sign, but the "Chop House" still remains in a much more high profile spot in the park. This just isn't important enough to mention in this article. Nemov (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, moving a sign isn't indicative of a permanent cultural change.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 10:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Atlanta merge discussion
The new article, Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy has no reason for independent existence apart from this page. It is a duplication of material and a WP:CFORK. As we should be avoiding "controversy sections" in articles, so should we avoid "controversy articles" without an established reason and consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is probably a larger discussion since these type of pages exist for Cleveland Indians name and logo controversy, Kansas City Chiefs name controversy, Chicago Blackhawks name and logo controversy, and a few others. There is some crossover, but I'm comfortable with separate articles for each one. Nemov (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2021
 * Are there separate articles for the names and logos of these teams? No. I would imagine that the team articles are large, mature, and fleshed-out, and it might make sense to split out the controversy. Here we have a very specific, small article about the one aspect (of various teams), and then another even-more-specific, smaller article about one specific team's situation. Unnecessary to split hairs like that, and a different situation than the ones you bring up. Anyway, Other stuff exists. Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy goes back to the early 1970s with Chief Noc-A-Homa. The chop became the focus after its introduction in the early 1990s. There's a lot more history regarding the Braves controversy than than the Kansas City Chiefs name controversy. It's not clear how the Braves controversy is a "different situation" than the Chiefs. Both teams use the chop and have controversy about the names. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The "Chop" is used by many teams and occasionally in situations unrelated to sports, so the Braves controversy is distinct from this article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - I am perplexed by what to do about the lack of proper formatting of this merge discussion given the example of that format above. It would be above my pay grade to assume that the other three comments after your initial proposal are in opposition, as am I.
 * What needs to be done is a rename to Atlanta Braves name and logo controversy (the logo being a tomahawk) which would not only make the distinction from this article clear, but bring it is line with the titles for the other Native American mascot controversy articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, "Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy" should be merged into the section on the Braves in the main Native American mascot controversy article since it contains little additional content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For consistency sake it would probably be wise to do that with the other team controversy articles (listed above) as well. Nemov (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The merge/split decision is made upon the application of Summary style, not consistency. If there are reliable sources for more detail, sections may grow into articles. The Washington and Cleveland teams were written about for decades. By comparison the Blackhawks and the Braves, or even the Chiefs received little attention until recently (perhaps because they were winning).--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the Braves attention is a recent event. The article may be new but there's been controversy surrounding the Braves since the early 1970s. It was very much in the news consistently since the early 1990s. The Atlanta Braves page was created recently, I'm sure there's more that could be added if that's your concern. For example, there's nothing written about Jane Fonda's involvement in 1991 which was national news at the time. Nemov (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I guess I didn't formally "oppose." The Tomahawk Chop deserves it's own article since as mentioned above has been used in multiple places. The chop itself has been a large part of the controversy with the Atlanta Braves over the last 3 decades so it should be in the name. Nemov (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Widely considered racist?
It is concerning to me that the opening paragraph does not acknowledge the racial disparity of how overwhelmingly white (or not Native American / American Indian at least) the crowds are that perform the action, nor the widespread recognition there is for the idea that it is considered racist - especially by the groups that the imagery originates from. A quick Google search for "tomahawk chop racist" produces articles from The Independent, Sports Illustrated, CNN, Sporting News, and The Forward. Limiting this core idea to the controversy section seems to be hiding how widely it is recognized. I don't know this team well or follow this closely, so I'm opening a discussion to it instead of editing - but I am concerned that the opening paragraph does not say "It is widely critiqued as racist" or any equivalent statement to define it as harmful, instead only defining it as a celebration that has a movement to change it (not claiming it is itself harmful). If this has already been discussed, I did not see reference to prior discussion here on the talk page about it - and I would request that this conversation stay listed then for future editors who are interested in this. If the opening is wide enough to reference the foam tomahawk, I think this deserves direct recognition too. --BlinksTale (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This article isn't about a team, since several teams do it. The lead is a summary of the article. Feel free to edit the summary to cover what's in the article. Nemov (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nemov I tried to do just that with citations and it was quickly reverted. The controversy and charges of racism are precisely what make this an encyclopedic topic. Not just any sporting cheer is deserving of its own encyclopedia entry. If editors are going to remove edits that include the word racism, they ought to instead improve on them without taking out any and all mention of racism. There are hundreds of articles quoting or citing hundreds of groups and individuals charging racism regarding the tomahawk chop. To avoid and omit that is a serious NPOV problem. Call me FW August (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I folded your additions into the controversy section. That was my improvement. You made a load of changes outside that one word including a change to the lead adding "faux Native American sports celebration" that wasn't an improvement. Feel free to massage the addition in the controversy section. Nemov (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nemov yes, that wording is accurate and was backed up with citations and further exposition in the main body. It is a celebration participants intend to look Native but is if non Native origin. Feel free to add back with wording that remains accurate, reflects the encyclopedic nature of the topic, and that is more to your liking. Call me FW August (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Earliest known recording? Proto-leitmotifs
I don't have the musical expertise to write it, but I'd love to see the article expand into the evolution of music to connote Native American culture, like we do with Oriental riff and Arabian riff. I note the "basic structure" of the music predates the 1980s; one example is found 7 mins into the 1979 film Meatballs. Feoffer (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Article needs sheet music and audio
Just noticed there's no way for a reader to hear the chant. Ideally, we'd have sheet music, audio of just the instrumental, and then audio or video of a crowd performing. Feoffer (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)