Talk:Washington Redskins name controversy/Archive 1

Indians or Natives?
The survey by the NMAI should have been cited and discussed before any blanket change was made to this article, given the wide usage of "Native American" on WP. I would have immediately reverted the change to "Indians" except that an intermediate edit prevents this. FriendlyFred (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * An anonymous editor has now gone back to Native American without discussion.FriendlyFred (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

POV
I believe the article falls too much towards opposition and gives way more information based on the opposition. In particular the "Current Status" section. four paragraphs are there and nearly everything mentioned is about those who oppose it,only one name is given in support of the name, the owner. To me, that defines a POV problem.Both sides are not given due weight.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 21:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Due weight does not mean equal weight. There are numerous large, reputable organizations and scholars published in peer-reviewed journals in opposition; only the owner and perhaps some fan bloggers want to keep the team name. Should we lower the standards of WP:RS to include the latter? FriendlyFred (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the politicians, football analysts, news analysts, Native Americans, etc. that support the name? And yes, "NPOV" at it's core is you explain both with proper due weight.  CRRays  Head90  | #OneMoreGame 06:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can cite good sources for defenders of the name, do so. Although I am the major contributor to this article at this time, it is only because I edit the main article Native American mascot controversy and put references to the Washington team here when I encounter them. Since I have access to a university library, most of my work is not newspapers and certainly not web-only references. Frankly the recent flurry of bad press is overwhelming, and I am not really very interested in this one team. FriendlyFred (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * However, I did make a start, so I should not leave things in disarray. Began by integrating some of the "Further Readings" items that I added some time ago into the main article. FriendlyFred (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried to get others to comment by posting on the NPOV Noticeboard and the Village Pump; but there seems to be no interest after two weeks so I am removing the tag.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Selecting from a flood of recent sources
Re: Talk:Native American mascot controversy

There have been many news articles on the controversy this month, too many to cite individually. I am working from Google searches, which should bring up a random sample of publications. The majority are on the "change the name" side of the controversy, so I do not see how I can be accused of bias when I ignore any. Following WP guidelines, my preference is for mainstream newspapers and magazines: the NY Times, Washington Post, Forbes, etc.

The references I have not used yet remain on my sandbox page. It would be good to have other contributors. FriendlyFred (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Slowly catching up with news reports.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The sandbox page referenced above has been getting messy, so I have moved the content to a place where I can edit it more freely. FriendlyFred (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent deletion reverted
The reason given was that it came from an editorial; I know of no guideline regarding this, but it is clearly identified as a quote from a well-qualified author. A second reference was also deleted which came from a peer-reviewed journal article.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Editorial comment removed since it was merely illustrative of the point, that opinion polls mean less than is usually claimed, also made in the following sentence to which I have added and additional academic citation.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Found another individual quote on the subject of polls, think that the original one is just as valid given that they are clearly identified as opinions by people with appropriate credentials, and are no different than the comments by fans, journalists, or representatives of the team.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation Spam?
Note #4 links to genealogybank.com, not the Boston Herald like it says. 75.118.51.238 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The genealogybank site does have a Boston Herald archive, but I found another source for the same quote.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

'Principal' - NOT 'principle'
This article refers to a 'principle' of a high school; it should be principal. DayDaemon (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Apparently the one week cooling off period is not going to work if my cited contributions are going to be reverted without comment by an anonymous user. There has been no discussion, and there cannot be with unregistered users on ComCast or ATT wifi connections. There have been some negotiable edits which I have not simply reverted, but they are opinions that are not supported by the sources cited. If there is any more of this I will request a longer period of semi-protection. FriendlyFred (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected for a month this time.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reactionary POV?
I came to this article to be informed, but all I really learned was that those in opposition to the name have taken complete control of the article. Take a look at the poll section; since it doesn't support the "official" policy that the Redskins name is bad, a page or more is dedicated to attacking the poll.

Controversy exists only between people of opposing viewpoints, so an article on controversy really ought to provide comparable (not equal) coverage from a neutral point of view. This reads like a 1990s Scientology page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davepl (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Opening section
I basically agreed with the tag RE opening becoming bloated by argument rather than being a summary of the article, so have move much to appropriate sections.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over the content of the opening section
Having to remove repeated insertions of content into the lead section because of an anonymous editor's insistence on its importance is merely a waste of time, and will only result in the protection of this article from being edited by any anonymous editor.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will use the one week semi-protection from anonymous changes to try to reorganize the entire article.FriendlyFred (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have completed some long overdue cleanup and re-organization.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What polls "prove"
Public opinion polls show what a particular sample of respondents said to a particular question at a particular time. Nothing more can be said unless all aspects of the poll stand up to scientific analysis. The article's cited references with regard to the 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll cast doubt on all aspects of sampling and other methodology, making any statement beyond the bare facts unsupported. Stating that it "proves" anything about the opinion of the entire population of Native Americans is not supported, and after ten years is of little value today.14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)FriendlyFred (talk)
 * Revised opening again. The poll does not claim to be scientific, merely statistically valid. That validity is questioned by scientists as cited in in the section on polling, and is not "speculative"; claiming that one poll proves anything is speculative.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * At this moment, the opening section has been restored to what it should be, a summary of the topic.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Back around it goes, but insisting that the poll is scientific and important does not make it so.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a week, so I have restored the opening section. Perhaps now there will be discussion.
 * The poll results can be stated, but calling it scientific is not supported by the reference, while the detailed criticism of the poll's methods it well-documented in the Washington_Redskins_name_controversy section FriendlyFred (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK the 11 points is propaganda. When you get anythign in a peer reveiwed artical or from 'real' polling expert in a inustry publication put that in there. One of the polls SI 2002 was actuly critisised in a juurnal artical. But if you know anything about polling these points are mostly silly. To silly to discuss. Land lines - all polls have that - they model that in there polling. There was no difference in age in the poll ect. But it is just hot air until some real research is done or someone does another poll. So the 11 points is doomed either way. Have the Post do a new poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.78.174 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The 11 points of criticism of the Annenberg poll have a great deal of academic expertise supporting them so there is no point in saying otherwise. Many of the criticisms are the same ones made in peer-reviewed articles criticizing the SI poll, being general criticisms of polling Native Americans (using land-line phones only, the problem of self-identification, the context and wording of the questions). Both sides of the argument are there to be read by all, which is why the article has "controversy" in the title. All points of view with a citation from a reliable source must remain, and cannot be deleted. The 11 points were published on a web site sponsored by the Law School at American University, not a propaganda blog. FriendlyFred (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is UFO stuff. The wording needs to be tested it was not. You have to do some dry runs that is how this stuff is done. The poll had over 700 people. Many of the criticims would litearly have American Indians less offended than the poll sujest no joke. As one example if the wording was confusing (no evedance has been provided) on a binary it would favor your side. (assuming you want the name to change which is your write just like I don't have to care which is my write.) So if you have two candidates with the same last name. That hurts the more popular candidat do you see you confusion helps the unpopular side unless is only confused offended poeple. That is a big jump and requires evedence. Also if the got only part indians than they would be less bothered than the genearl public and Real indians. 90-9-1 vs 90-10-10 genearl public at the time. So by this logic of fake indians pulling to polling down from real indians who we assume are really offended but were not called enouph and confused by the question. Even if you hit 50 fake if real indians were offended in large numbers they would have sill hit more than the genearl public on the poll. Unless fake indians were not offended. So this is not good thinking. Your 11 points also sujest a push pull question. We need a section for complints but not given the same wate as the public opinion polling. But wiki is not just propaganda vaccines work, no WMD in iraq these are facts. The poll is a fact you have to deal with it. Now if you can get another poll going that is fine. If you can get some resarch in a profesional statment from pew or a journal that is fine. So I am not closeing debate but failing that the 11 points will go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.78.174 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to latest criticism and edits
This is my reply to User talk:Abc57

This article has been a constant target of accusations regarding its point of view. Stating that only academic scholarship is acceptable on Wikipedia (WP) does not resolve anything since the topic is not a purely scientific one, but is about a public controversy, which is largely addressed in the media. I have limited myself to major news sources rather than blogs or other web pages. There have been many complains of things left out, but there have never been any additions of material by anyone else. I basically Google the subject on a regular basis, and add anything that is new and not mere editorial opinion. The opinions included are:
 * The team owner and his representatives
 * The NFL Commissioner
 * Coaches, players and other owners
 * Sportscasters and a limited number of commentators
 * Elected officials
 * Statements by Native American organizations and tribes
 * Statements by Civil Rights, Religious, and Academic organizations

If limited to peer-reviewed academic sources, the controversy would disappear, since all of academic sources agree that the name of the Washington football team should change because, as the article says in the second sentence, “Numerous civil rights, educational, athletic, and academic organizations consider the use of Native American names and/or symbols by non-native sports teams to be a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping that contributes to all of the other problems faced by Native Americans.”, a scientific consensus supported by all of the major academic associations in the social sciences and most fully specified in the reference to the American Psychological Association resolution.

The only pseudo-science in the controversy is insistence that the 2004 Annenberg survey means anything after ten years during which it has been thoroughly rebutted by many PhDs. Calling these rebuttals “conjecture” makes no sense in the context of insisting on academic rigor.

Then there is the insistence of placing great significance on “facts” cited with no analysis. Yes, there are Indian Reservation schools that use the name; but what does that mean? There are black people who use the n-word; but I am sure no white people take that fact to mean that they can use it too. Yet this is exactly the implied (but unsupported) conclusion that is being asserted with regard to the r-word. The only quote from any source I can find is the Red Mesa principal, so that is why I have removed the “fact” from the opening section to the place where it can read in context.

Another editor pointed out that the opening section is intended, according to WP guidelines, to be a summary of the article, not the presentation of argument. Summarizing such a complex article is no easy task, but the recent changes have not been an improvement.FriendlyFred (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Polls vs science
Science defines the problem of team names and images such as the topic of this article in the context of the harm done by stereotypes. That harm has been documented by a growing number of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. These studies are part of the current academic consensus regarding how people actually think and behave, and the consequences of that behavior. The fact that much of what determines human behavior is unconscious or unintentional should be well known, since it was popularized by Freudian psychoanalysis at the beginning of the 20th century. Yet here great emphasis is made regarding the intent of sports fans and what they say consciously when asked in interviews or polls. In the context of science, polls do not prove anything except how much the public accepts stereotypes as true and/or harmless. In the recent past the majority of Americans did not agree with equality based upon race, gender, or sexual orientation. Does anyone think polls taken would have been proof that social inequality did not exist or was not a problem? Yet that appears to be what opponents of a name change are saying with regard to this controversy. Opinion polls use the same statistical methods as science, but the results are not scientific except in the context of a scientific theory. Scientific theories are not opinions; they are the academic consensus that Wikipedia articles are supposed to use as the basis of a neutral point of view. This article should present the neutral point of view that a minority, supported by scientific evidence and research, have the opinion that the name should change while a majority of the American public, including many that are ethnically but not culturally Native American, think that no change is needed. FriendlyFred (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to re-write the polling section to reflect the above.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"In the context of science, polls do not prove anything except how much the public accepts stereotypes as true and/or harmless." Well they view nicknames as harmless that is what they ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc57 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume this is once again referring to the 2004 poll as the only valid measure of Native American opinion, ignoring the more recent research and the simple fact that groups representing many Native Americans are offended. The NCAI alone represents 30% of all Federally recognized tribal members, about a million individuals.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Good places to add some more detail.
I think the court case could use better explanation. Nothing wrong with what is there. Old history, implications, and appeal process should be useful to readers. Also no clear time line on the controversy in the controversy section. If you had not been following you would be hit by mascots then one paragraph. As there have now been many events in this latest flare up more information on "Events" might be helpful in historical context. Then you can have mascots issues and more detail on what ever issue. We need to think about someone never hearing anything reading this article. Nothing urgent.

Patawomeck support: notable?
It's fairly small potatoes compared to the many Indian and Native organizations opposed to the name, but the chief and other leaders of the Patawomeck tribe of Virginia have said that a) they don't find the "Redskins" name offensive, and b) if the team does change its name, they would support a change to the "Washington Potomacs", naming the team after the Patawomeck tribe. ("Potomac" is derived from "Patawomeck".) Is this worthy of inclusion in the article? I'm not sure, myself. (For what it's worth, I'm a member of the tribe, but unlike my chief I think it would be a good idea to change the team name.) Anyway, the source for the "Washington Potomacs" idea and the Patawomeck support is here, if anyone wants to consider it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This article already has a note that the prior Chief, Robert "Two Eagles" Green, supports the name. There is no indication how wide this support is among the other 1,500 members, and certainly is not enough to assume that a majority would like to see the Redskins become the Potomacs. The many tribes opposed to the name are listed because there was a vote by a tribal council, so I would not put them on the same level. It dismays me personally that there are any Native American supporters given the first comment made by a reader of the magazine: "The way they play, the Washington Squaws is a more fitting handle.", managing to be both sexist and racist in one sentience. That is the problem with public discussion of the issue, it is not the name, but the often hostile stereotypes of Native Americans that the name legitimizes, that is the problem. Since this American Spectator article is out there, it should be cited somewhere here, but should not be given more significant that it deserves. I would also note that the source is not a major news magazine, but one with a conservative agenda. Of course they would say that the NY Times and the Washington Post have a liberal agenda. (Also note that the current issue disparages Elizabeth Warren by referring to here claims of native ancestry.) FriendlyFred (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with everything you say here. Thanks for adding the item to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1990 Quantum Leap episode - "Freedom"
I know the characters portrayed in Quantum Leap are fictional but in the episode "Freedom" (original air date February 14, 1990), an elderly ailing Shoshone Indian played by the late Native American actor Frank Salsedo proclaimed that The Redskins are the "best damn team in America!" Quantum Leap video clipI wonder if the actor was still alive today what would be his opinion or maybe he had already gone on record somewhere prior to his passing. Could this information be useful for an "In Popular Culture" section?

Quantum Leap dealt with many subjects that were considered taboo back in the early 1990s such as homosexuality in the episode "Running For Honor" (original air date January 15, 1992) or when he leaped in some episodes as a woman. It's amazing how times have changed where now homosexuality is almost the norm and the use of the word Redskins is supposedly offending and derogatory to some who are making a "scene" out of it. Night Tracks (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion a "popular culture" section is not a relevant addition to this article given the difficulty of maintaining a focus on what people actually say on either side of the issue. Adding what TV writers placed in the mouth of an aging Native American actor adds nothing, no matter how "enlightened" they may have been on other social issues.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Replace with name White Honkeys?
Was the suggestion that the name be replaced with the name White Honkeys serious or satirical?

Is there a source for it? If it was satirical could it still be notable and included?

131.111.184.102 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Is "Efforts" heading NPOV?
I'm uncertain whether the section currently titled "Efforts to show Native American support for the name" is appropriately titled. The word "efforts" suggests that the impetus comes solely from the team ownership and management, rather than from the Native Americans themselves — in effect, astroturfing. Now, this may or may not be the case, but I don't think it's in keeping with the spirit of WP:NPOV for us to imply it. As it is, the cited examples in the section include both initiatives which are clearly sponsored by the team and comments of support from individuals who don't have visible ties to the team (except perhaps as fans). I think that it might be better to call it "Native American support for the name", and let the text indicate which expressions of "support" deserve weight. But I'm open to a defense of the "efforts" phrasing, if anyone wants to give it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When I named the section it was entirely team-sponsored "efforts" rather than spontaneous voices of support. I have made the change suggested and will let the content speak for itself, since I try to state the gist of each source. FriendlyFred (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of news item
I added, without commentary, the news stories and content of a video posted to YouTube and the RedskinsFacts websites that has testimonial from 13 Native American supporters of the team. I then was made aware of a news item about one of these individuals having been indicted for embezzling tribal funds. The addition of latter item was reverted as not relevant in the opinion of one user. In a controversial article, changes should only be made after some discussion, so I have restored the item.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One individual who participated in a youtube video is not notable enough to be included on the Washington Redskins name controversy page. Like I said, it is irrelevant. The source you provided states that Wade Colliflower pleaded not guilty. Why was this not included?


 * Also, questionable material should first be removed, discussed, then once consensus is reached, either be added back in or removed. Meatsgains (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The item has the same relevance as the video, since it relates directly to its meaning and significance. It was also worthy of a news story. My error of omitting the not guilty plea was something you could have corrected rather than deleting something based upon your opinion without any discussion. This entire article is controversial, I do not plan to submit every edit to this talk page for prior approval given the lack of participation in the article's development for almost a year.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the indictment of the individual in the youtube video has no relevance to the subject of this article. Maybe if the charges were somehow connected to the Washington Redskins name controversy, it should be included–but it's not. Yes, the video should be noted, but the independent charges of the individual should not. Also, it is a news story and we will likely never hear of it again, thus inclusion violates WP:NOTNEWS. Not every edit needs to have a discussion beforehand. After you reverted my edit, I posted on the article's talk page, at the same time as you so how are you claiming my edit was done "without discussion"? I will say it again, questionable material should be removed from the page, discussed, and then once consensus is reached, either be included or removed. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no violation of NOTNEWS in this item. I do not use the citation as justification for including the item on its own merits, only in the context of the entire paragraph regarding the video. I know of no rule regarding prior discussion of edits, instead I have always followed the principle of WP:BOLD. We did collide in starting this discussion, which could have been avoided by stating your intentions here first and then reverting.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would support keeping this material if there was a clear connection between the individual's indictment and the Washington Redskins name controversy but the linkage is farfetched and is an attempt to discredit the individual's support of the name "Redskins". Perhaps an RfC is in order. Meatsgains (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, there must be more than two to reach a consensus.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of news item in section "Native American support for the name
I added a paragraph on the online posting by the Redskins of a video in which 13 Native American individuals expressed their support for the team's name. The next day I added a reference citing a news item regarding one of these individuals having been indicted in federal court for embezzling from his own tribe (and pleading not guilty). Both items were stated per the cited sources with no additions. If readers are left to make up their own minds as to the significance, meaning, and relevance of the video to the topic of the article, it is my position that they should also have the additional information regarding one of the individuals featured. Another editor, Meatsgains thinks the additional information is irrelevant.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose inclusion - There is no connection between the individual from the Youtube video's "indictment" and the Redskins name controversy. The paragraph does not belong on this page. Meatsgains (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * My feeling is that the information about the individual's indictment could be included if there are reliable sources making the connection between his indictment and the Redskins name controversy. Without a reliable source making that connection, I think that putting the information here smacks a bit of synthesis of published material. It's a bit like adding a sentence to an article about The Wizard of Oz pointing out L. Frank Baum's racist anti-Indian editorials: true, but not necessarily relevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no connection between Wade Colliflower's embezzlement of tribe money and the Redskins name controversy. The embezzlement content certainly does not hold weight on this page. The only source Fred provides to support this claim, which I'm not doubting is true by any means, fails to make a relevant connection between Colliflower and the subject of this article. The Youtube video is definitely worth noting, however, additional information on one of the individuals involved in the video is not. Including this contentious material is an attempt to discredit the individual's support for the "Redskins" name and makes the section read more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Meatsgains (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I had never read WP:SYNTH before, but having done so brings into question to some degree the entire premise for this article, or any other regarding a "controversy" being discussed in the media. What is it other than the juxtaposition of "facts" from which the reader must draw her or his own conclusion? During the past year I have merely been following the pattern established by the creators and prior editors of this article. As I did my research, I began to have misgivings regarding the value of this article, and its "encyclopedic" credentials, which I have begun to address on my user page.


 * With regard to this particular case, I do not see the Frank Baum example as analogous. An article about a work of fiction need not include details from the bio of the author; but the Redskins video is putting forward the testimony of individuals on one side of the controversy; the Time reference quoting Wade Colliflower specifically. Additional information about this individual is not irrelevant, but it may by SYNTH. However this is all very new information, and I have no doubt that there will be a published source that makes the connection explicitly.
 * FriendlyFred (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the difference between impermissible synthesis and general "controversy" articles such as this one is that if the issue has been discussed in the context of the controversy in reliable sources, then it's the reliable sources making the connections, and not Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case I continue to support inclusion of the embezzlement item, since the Time reference places this individual into the controversy, and his credibility is relevant to the issue. This is really spiting hairs in my opinion, but if it is removed, I am sure that eventually it will be mentioned in another article that makes the connection.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we in agreement that until the connection is made and published in an RS, the inclusion of this material should be removed? Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I retain my opinion but will not contest the issue further if someone else removes the reference.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the material. I have no problem adding it back in once this connection is established in an RS. Meatsgains (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Article length and complexity
Passing a milestone of 400 inline citations (!) causes me to take a pause and wonder what to do, particularly since a new football season is beginning with the controversy continuing. I am sure removing/summarizing any of the "keep the name" material will be resisted. In spite of unsupported and eventually dismissed assertions to the contrary, I think I have maintained a balance, but that has meant including almost every citation that I find in reliable news sources.

The most obvious target for cuts are the lists of opponents/supporters which I did not begin but have been adding to steadily. They also suffer from the issue of WP:SYNTH that I hint at in the RfC above; conclusions are implied by the larger number of those wanting change, which instead of leaving everyone with a clear statement of current public opinion, there are charges that there must be bias at work keeping supporters of the team out.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Would it be worth creating a new page with the material from the "Governmental and regulatory action" section? We could then summarize this section significantly and provide a link to the new page, consequently trimming down the article. Meatsgains (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem of splitting out sections is whether they are sufficiently noteworthy for their own article. There are already articles on the trademark cases, which are supposed to include all the legal details of interest to the law community, but I do not visit there to find out if they are being maintained.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is true. We could remove the "Governmental and regulatory action" section all together and just leave the See also directing readers to the trademark cases article. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The government section is only half about the trademark case, I have tried to cut it down some. I checked Washington Redskins trademark dispute, it is not being maintained.FriendlyFred (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

POV: Article is incredibly slanted
Instead of relying on actual studies to explain the origins of the term (like Ives Goddard's study -- http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf), this article makes abundant use of opinion pieces that are not based on studies. Goddard's study cited that "redskins" was first used by Native Americans themselves, not by colonialists for example (which is cited throughout this entry). Dictionary terms are not given context (like how they reference a 1699 letter by Samuel Smith that the Oxford English Dictionary later concluded was fabricated). There is a bulleted list of why "redskin" is racist, when Goddard's study explained otherwise. We should rely on actual studies from reputable journals to explain the origins of "redskin", not op-eds. Sy9045 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The word origin section cites both Goddard and equally qualified academics with other professional opinions, not op-eds. "Editorializing" / "Original Research" tags are intended to mark content that go beyond their sources, which these do not. This section does not go into great detail, such as the Smith letter, since there is a separate article Redskin (slang) on the term. (Note: I removed the redundant POV tag placed on the section since there is one at the top of the article, unless the intention was only to tag the section? In that case Template:POV-section should have been used.)FriendlyFred (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

FriendlyFred (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture section
User:Richiekim added a new section for the South Park Go Fund Yourself episode, which was then deleted by User:koavf with no edit comment. I reverted that deletion because I think having this section is appropriate given that the topic of the article is a public controversy in which popular opinion is relevant. This would not be the case if this were a rigorous presentation of facts from academic sources only. I am planning to add a reference to the Daily Show episode to this section.FriendlyFred (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pop culture "In popular culture" sections quickly devolve into trivia (if they aren't at the outset). A "See also" section helps users to navigate to relevant articles without putting undo weight on cruft. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not think that it is trivial, but significant that this once obscure issue has reached the point of being satirized nationally. I do not think material should be deleted preemptively, without discussion, from a controversial article.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone change the misspelling on the aforementioned section, "lead" to "led?" Lead is not a past-tense verb. I was blocked from doing so because I use Ultron-56. It may have let me change "mislead" to "misled," but this one was not changed.


 * It was done, thanks.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sneaky POV editing (FriendlyFred)
This is why Wikipedia blows. Some user (cough, Fred, cough) makes a page his pet project and continually modifies it to favor his viewpoint. Now, this article's not as bad as some I've seen, and up until the "Controversy" section there's not much to complain about. But it's still a mess.

There are two overriding problems. One, the article attempts to use soft science (e.g. sociology papers) as proof that a sports mascot does real harm to Native Americans. This is ridiculous. The entire thing is a series of possible tenuous links. "Stereotyping may directly affect" Native American youth. "Euro-Americans [. . .] may be more likely to believe" stereotypes. But what stereotype? There's not even a specific caricature caused by the name "Redskins." But never mind that; let's just throw in some complaints by academics. And hey, look, one person at a restaurant somewhere did something offensive. We better mention that too even though it has no real bearing.

The second issue is the way when the article includes something it doesn't like to hear (I'll give Fred credit for not simply deleting it), it's followed by a series of only loosely related remarks intended, it appears, to call into question the inconvenient information without directly challenging it. Thus, when discussing public opinion polls, the article makes sure to spend a paragraph mentioning potential problems with polling. It also goes out of its way to craftily state that most Americans think polls are biased and then talk of an "alternative method" that gave different results. Then there's a sly reference to people falsely claiming Native heritage, without, of course, directly quantifying anything. The goal is clearly to dismiss by suggestion. There is one segment where a study is directly criticized, but the comments are flimsy and do nothing but hint at errors.

To conclude, this page contains lots of slanted manipulation. 67.3.122.28 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually ignore anonymous editors, but this was an attempt at reasonable discussion. I agree with much of the criticism of Wikipedia (WP). The premise of crowd-sourced knowledge is difficult to maintain when there is no crowd. But what am I to do when there is an article that so many find by Googling, and I assume use to form an opinion? I am a pragmatist, and try to make the information in the article as good as I can. I am a social scientist, and the characterization of these academic disciplines as "soft" is ridiculous. The methods and status of psychology, sociology, and anthropology are equivalent to the "hard" sciences, and deserve the same respect. When sociologists do research for years and find the same results, there is no longer any question regarding the academic consensus that an encyclopedia must reflect. When the professional organizations that represent all of these academics pass resolutions calling the end to Indian mascots, there should be no controversy. However, the topic is also public opinion, so I include any other opinion I find, as is admitted. This does not mean that I should not include rebuttals to those opinions with citations of more informed, unbiased opinions when they exist. In spite of any opinion to the contrary, what a PhD says has more weight in WP than what a team owner, manager or fan says. Most of the material that advocates change cannot be rebutted because there are no academics on "the other side", only a few conservative journalists.
 * If the language I use to state the findings of the social sciences appear soft, perhaps I am going to far to be neutral. The fact is that no science deals with absolutes, not even physics. I avoid original research by citing a reliable source for almost every sentence. The material that criticizes the use of polls is very well-sourced. I am accustomed to writing for other academics with the same background, so perhaps I need to expand this section to make it clearer for public consumption. The general discussion about polling is supposed to provide some of the background needed to understand what the polls mean beyond their face value.

FriendlyFred (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well said, but I'll add two comments.
 * This is the best referenced article I have come across.
 * I believe that FF works in good faith, and I've been here long enough to know what that looks like. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 67.3.122.28, I think it would be a useful exercise if you chose something specific you think should change, and proposed a specific change—exact text—with the necessary sourcing. You up to that? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss's sneaky POV

 * Fred, some comments after thought. To me your response above would appear to demonstrate an inability to maintain neutral point of view in the article. It seems to me you're feeling justified in giving more weight to the pro-change point of view because it's the view supported by academia.


 * "there is no longer any question regarding the academic consensus that an encyclopedia must reflect"
 * "what a PhD says has more weight in WP than what a team owner, manager or fan says"
 * "most of the material that advocates change cannot be rebutted because there are no academics on 'the other side'"


 * While that may represent truth to you and me, it's still a point of view. Maybe I'm missing it, but I haven't seen clear evidence that Wikipedia thinks academia deserves more weight. Can you point me to that policy? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the basic WP guidelines, Identifying reliable sources, states that scholarship and secondary sources are the better sources, while newspapers are less reliable since while they may contain facts that have been checked, they are primary sources and opinion. Most of what is on the web, such as blogs should not be cited at all since it is very likely to be nothing but one person's opinion and "original research". If you read the talk page for the article on biological evolution you will see the implementation of this policy where they state why that article does not "teach the controversy": because science should not be placed next to non-science, which would give them equal weight.
 * As I said there is no scholarship on the other side of this controversy. I have done searches in the databases of journal articles and my university library, and there are none. Anyone else is free to do the same. What the public thinks is only in newspapers, and I try to stick to the mainstream news which is fact checked. Opinion from the news is clearly cited as such.
 * I am Euro-American and had no connection to or interest in this issue until I happened to read the articles, found them lacking, and began to do research. Since I am retired it gives me a place to use by background, I hope productively. Maintaining a neutral point of view is what scholars in the sciences do.

FriendlyFred (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing source reliability with due weight.
 * This is not an article about science, so the biological evolution is a false equivalence.
 * "As I said there is no scholarship on the other side of this controversy." I know, and I'm saying the other side of this controversy needn't be scholarship. You believe that scholarship is more significant than the rest, your editing seems to revolve around that belief (as evident in your own statements), and that's not NPOV in my opinion.
 * I doubt I could be NPOV in your position, I certainly don't fault you for that. But I think if you want NPOV you'll need to solicit someone experienced to represent the other side in this article. I don't particularly care whether this article is NPOV or not, as I'm sure it's only one of thousands that aren't. I'm just giving input, and I'll probably stop at this point if you still disagree. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

But this is an article about science, since there are so many scientists publishing on the topic. The section from the NPOV guidelines, WP:GEVAL speaks to "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance". Presenting scholarship next to other views gives a false impression of their equivalency. This is where source reliability and due weight intersect. For me, the controversy needs to be addressed, but now that I have done the research that the NPOV policy recommends by consulting reputable books and journal articles, it is obvious that the name change side of the controversy is the neutral one. There are also non-scientist extremists on that side making unsupported claims that I do not cite, but that does not discredit the science. It matters little that the NPOV is held by a minority of individuals. The majority can be wrong on social issues, and certainly about racism. Although on a much smaller scale, the comparison of this article to the one on evolution is apt.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have posted this issue on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. FriendlyFred (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

List-defined references
The article is relatively quiet now, but do you see a lot of activity happening in the future? If so, it might be worth the fairly large effort to convert to list-defined references, which happens to be one of my specialties. Are you an LDR believer? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never knew of this before. I can see the advantage of having an editable reflist, but it would also add the task of maintaining it. Is the list kept in order by placement in the text? Other groupings come to mind. FriendlyFred (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It does have its downside, but I've yet to meet anyone who had any experience using it and didn't feel the upside was significantly greater. I've gotten multiple barnstars for converting to it. :)


 * It's not an all-or-nothing deal. You can mix it with refs in the body. So editors adding refs will usually put them in the body as usual, and one or two self-appointed LDR maintainers will come along later and move them to the reflist. When I do that, I also standardize the refs, including adding archive where necessary.


 * It doesn't change the References section in any way; its appearance is still determined by the sequence of the cites in the body. The refs can be in any sequence, but refname sequence keeps things organized.


 * You can edit Shooting of Michael Brown and/or 2014 Isla Vista killings to see what it looks like in use.


 * The advantages are all about easier editing due to vastly less clutter in the body, which is why it wouldn't be worthwhile to convert to it after an article has stabilized. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I have read the Help article on LDR, installed the JavaScript for reference segregation, and tested it on a sandbox page. It appears to be better to name all the ref tags first before extracting them. I like an authorLastname.authorInitial.YYYYMMDD naming convention which should avoid duplication and fits my preference for APA style. The majority of the article sources have an author but for the few that don't, publisher could be used. Assuming author names are usually <= 15 chars, the refnames would be 26 characters or shorter.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant YYYY in refname for books, YYYYMM for journals, YYYYMMDD for news and websites (accessdate).FriendlyFred (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I gather you feel there will be enough future activity to justify this effort.


 * You're already ahead of me on LDR, since I hadn't yet taken the time to look into that script. I gather you feel it will be a timesaver, and worth using.


 * I changed one refname to your convention (baby steps). See if you like it.


 * I note that the ref I changed is missing author parameters. There are three listed in the source, so we might as well state the obvious that the refname will reflect only the first author where there are multiple authors.


 * However, I think missing author parameters should be added after the conversion is complete, so as not to add to body clutter while we're in the process of removing it. The same goes for archive parameters. Or any other parameters, for that matter.


 * Re: "YYYYMMDD for news and websites (accessdate)". In the ref I changed, it's the APA's website and apparently a journal. The journal date is 201008 and the accessdate is 20130123. Which to use in the refname, and how to state that part of the convention clearly?


 * What about existing news and website refs that don't show an accessdate?


 * I also gather that the refname will contain two periods if there is an author, or one period if not, as publishers don't have anything to put in the authorInitial field. So, hypothetically,  or  . Alternatively, we could drop the period between authorLastname and authorInitial, as , thereby providing a consistent format. Let me know which way you want to go on that.


 * Lastly, there's the question of quotation marks around refnames. I don't like using them when the refname doesn't require them, because I think they hurt readability, not to mention using unnecessary additional space. On the other hand, (1) some editors always use the quotation marks (when they code a refname at all) because they're unsure of when they're required and it's best to be safe, and (2) VisualEditor is currently using the quotes unconditionally, and that may never change. I already encountered this problem in the Michael Brown article, where an editor was using VE and it kept sticking quotes around our existing unquoted refnames. So the choice to omit quotation marks in the local convention would mean a small amount of additional work to maintain the convention.


 * I know that's a lot of questions all at once, but we need to answer all of them before proceeding. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am busy today but will get to your questions tonight. The other question is the notification needed to generate a consensus that this should be done.FriendlyFred (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're thinking we need an RfC to solicit outside opinions for something like this? My take is that we would only need that (1) if there was disagreement among the parties present, or (2) if we didn't feel competent to make the decision on our own. As far as I can tell, the only factor in the decision is the predicted amount of future activity, and no one is in a better position than you to predict that—certainly no one who has no experience with this subject or this article. If you think it's a good idea, we already have consensus as far as I'm concerned. But I could be wrong, as there are still one or two things I don't know about this stuff. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made many unilateral decisions, but rely on WP:BOLD since there is so little feedback. I have done RfCs for other purposes such as answering the POV tags, both greeted by silence. But I go through the motions of seeking consensus then the guidelines call for it.

There has been news on the topic that has bridged the 2013 to 2014 football seasons, which has never happened before, and there are actions in the works that are playing out, such as the FCC petition (added an update last night). On Columbus Day there will be a symposium at the U of MD School of Journalism, which may generate another round of comment. (My alma mater, I will be there.) I am following #ChangeTheName on twitter and "activists" on Facebook, which leads me to news stories (but a lot more nonsense). Much is repetition of issues already covered in the article, so I update old refs, but there are new ones every week. As I have said above, material actually needs to be removed, it is becoming unreadable.

Your LDR questions: For a web ref such as the APA Resolution Commentary, I would go with the publisher and the accessdate, not the authors. This was done in 2010 but there could be an update by the same organization with new authors but little change in the substance being used in the article. While it was also published in the monthly "Communique" from the APA, it is not a peer-reviewed journal article, but a policy statement by the organization. You happened to pick one that is anomalous.

I was unclear: publication date for news (it is not really news if it has none, likely just a blog sponsored by a news organization); accessdate for web refs that are not also publications. I lumped them together because both need a full date, YYYYMMDD. If a web ref has no accessdate or it is more than a year old, it should be accessed again. Another reason for LDR, easier to do dead link checking.

CamelCasing the authorLastInitial without the period is fine. (If it is not obvious, I was also a coder.) FriendlyFred (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume you meant, "I go through the motions of seeking consensus when the guidelines call for it." Fair enough, but what guidelines call for an RfC in this situation?


 * As to refname conventions, hmmmmm. You're putting more "meaning" into refnames than I'm used to. To me, refname has always been fairly arbitrary, just a way to tie cites to refs that's easier to use than some random number or something. It's not something a reader ever sees, and an editor doesn't need the refname for information about the ref, he can go to the ref itself for that. Even before your last post above, the convention required multiple if-then decisions. And then your last post added more if-thens. All these if-thens seem of questionable practical value, and some of them will probably will be beyond my knowledge level in many cases. In other words, aren't we making the naming convention unnecessarily complex? In case you can't tell, I'm a proponent of the KISS principle. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am being academic and applying the APA Style, and I also use Zotero, an open source reference database. Both use name/date (where name is either the author(last,initials) or an organization if there is no author) as the beginning of any citation. Web citations with neither an author nor a reputable organization are more than frowned upon, there is "officially" no way to cite them. (The same should apply to WP, otherwise how can anyone know fact from fiction?) The inline APA citation is (name, date) rather than a superscript as in WP, which allows for alphabetic look-up in printed references. I am thinking how to make it easy on myself connecting the WP list to other lists of references I may keep. If you look at my sandbox it shows all the refs that do not make it into the article. Either the LDR docs or the segregation script mention just using a title keyword and number, but this would not yield a meaningful sort order. I had planned to export the list to an external editor to keep it in order.


 * The documentation mentions consensus, and the script even has a warning popup about getting consensus; not exactly a guideline but reasonable given the extent of the change. I have named/renamed all the refs in the opening section. The script does make the whole process easier. I will continue to do one whole section at a time.


 * As far as quotations (ref name="whatever"), I have been using them and the script generates them, and perhaps the Visual Editor also?

FriendlyFred (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, but I'm not an academic, so I'll leave the refnames to you. I'll be happy to help out with filling in and standardizing refs once they're all in the reflist. Yes, as I said above, VE is currently using the quotes unconditionally. Whether that remains the case depends on how many people complain, and how loudly, I suppose. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sports vs Civil Rights
Efforts to generate discussion, both here and in other talk pages, have yielded little. Reading and thinking about the issue and looking at the article again I see one problem: too many primary sources. The core of the article for me is the main subsection under Controversy, which uses high-quality sources to state the scientific POV, that the Redskins name and logo are an example of stereotyping, which is a harmful practice. More than the mere facts, these academic sources define the issue is being about civil rights and public mental health, not sports. To follow this with an endless list of what individuals say in mainstream newspapers, most of whom are in sports, runs counter to the factual content and gives undue weight to the opinions of sports writers and players, which might be seen as synthesis. It matters little that the majority of opinions in sports agree with the conclusion reached by the experts; they often agree for the wrong reason and place the topic back in the context of sports and personal feelings which is what the academics are arguing against. It trivializes the issue.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand the distinction between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. Citing directly to "academic sources" such as social science research is an example of a WP:PRIMARY source (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for more information).  They must be used with greater caution to make sure that no WP:OR is done in misapplying it to these facts.  You can think that is the "scientific" view of the issue, but we cant just assume that scholarship applies here.  Meanwhile most of the rest of the statements on the page are valid WP:RSOPINION.  "Mainstream newspapers" are reliable secondary sources and should have their viewpoint expressed (with appropriate WP:WEIGHT given to it based on how many reliable sources agree), to not do so would be WP:UNDUE.  There is enough disagreement and opinion that citing it directly as fact would be wrong, and so we attribute the sources.  I don't think you are correctly citing WP:SYNTH.  I suggest you read Verifiability, not truth especially the part about social science research.  --Obsidi (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources, and only use the latter; books and journal articles that summarize the primary research. The mainstream newspaper articles are what I was referring to with regard to SYNTH, because they are often primary sources, direct reporting of what people say. Even when carefully attributed to the speaker, their juxtaposition in the article may imply a conclusion that is not supported.
 * As a social scientist, I disagree with the statement "there are no universal truths in social sciences". All sciences operate under the current paradigm of their field of study. This is as true of psychology as it is of physics. There are areas of disagreement, but there are also generally accepted principles that reflect a consensus of any discipline, otherwise it would not deserve to be called such. Thus I can say "sociologists consider ethnic stereotypes to be harmful" without equivocation.

FriendlyFred (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Article size
See WP:Article size. According to Prosesize, the "readable prose" in the article is 87 kB. That does not include the substantial amount of bulleted text, which for some reason cannot be counted by Prosesize. According to WP:SIZERULE, that puts the article somewhere between "Probably should be divided" and "Almost certainly should be divided", and much closer to the latter. I'm not making a specific proposal, but editors might consider a split or major trimming. The output from Prosesize follows.
 * File size: 865 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 125 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 21 kB
 * Wiki text: 282 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 87 kB (14649 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1673 B &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that purely numerical calculations are relevant as long as the article is readable. There are sections that could be reduced/summarized, but it would be difficult to do a split since there is little that is notable outside of the context of the entire article. However the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation had its own article created by a class at American University soon after it was founded, so essentially the entire section on the foundation here could be moved there. The news has slowed, with no really new topics, so I do not think there will be much increase unless something significant happens.FriendlyFred (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some minor trimming, New stats:

FriendlyFred (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * File size: 832 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 20 kB
 * Wiki text: 270 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 82 kB (13722 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1563 B

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 should be in Redskin (slang)
 * Washington Redskins name controversy is a summary of Native American mascot controversy