Talk:Washington Redskins name controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent anonymous edits

I have requested that this article be semi-protected indefinitely given the persistence of anonymous changes that reflect nothing more than personal opinions without references to sources. The oddest change was the removal of the content based upon a news article because it was "conjecture" by the author. A source cannot be countered except by citing a different source.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

While writing this another edit was made regarding a video, however the ref did not link to the video, but to the entire RedskinsFacts web page.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected (no anonymous edits) for one month.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Good article review

The article has been very stable for some time, with only minor changes due to news, but generally there is nothing more to say on the topic.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

FriendlyFred is to be commended for all the research

NOTE: Just a note to say that I agree with FriendlyFred on the fact that these particular controversies are very important issues for the public and our readers to be informed about, and I commend him quite highly for the meticulous referencing efforts he's put into his research.

I'm just saying that in order our readers to have a chance at wanting to be motivated to read these articles, they should be concise.

I'd say try to aim for WP:SIZE of maybe 50 Kilobytes, and if it turns out to be 100, that's still an incredible achievement. :)

— Cirt (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Redskins name controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Article size issues

Major problems regarding WP:SIZE of the article.

These have been raised on the article's talk page by multiple different editors at different points in time:

1. 17 August 2014
2. 15 December 2014
3. 3 October 2015

The opposite has happened. The article has only gotten bigger since then. This is a significant issue. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Two images used in article, I'll do an Image review on them:

1. File:FedExField02.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, upon inspection of image page there, image review checks out okay.
2. File:Redskins scriptlogo.png = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, upon inspection of image page there, image review checks out okay.

No issues here. — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Prior to my stepping in as GA Reviewer the article didn't have much Stability issues going back at least 3 months.
2. As my complaints are primarily with potential failure on WP:SIZE problems of article, I'll set aside the Stability problem and address it in the rest of the review from a WP:LENGTH analysis.
3. NOTE: I'll refrain from editing the article itself further myself. Hopefully others will make a good-faith attempt to successfully address issues recommended during this GA Review.
4. Next, on to rest of the review.
5. I plan to do a point-by-point assessment based upon the GA Criteria, and hopefully place this as GA on Hold.
6. Ideally, then there is a possibility the issues will be addressed in a responsive fashion.
7. I'll place the rest of the GA Review below in due time.

— Cirt (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest of GA Review

• Update: Rest of GA Review = pending. There's some good dialogue ongoing on the article's talk page with helpful recommendations to the GA Nominator by myself, Meatsgains, and Mandruss. I'm going to wait a little while, assume good faith that the GA Nominator will attempt to address those recommendations by these three (3) editors, then post up a point-by-point assessment of the article as a GA Review with respect to the Good Article required quality criteria. At that point in time, I'll most likely place the article as a GA on Hold, and then again allow some time for a further response. — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: GA Nominator is making excellent progress so far in responding to requests to trim down size of article. — Cirt (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Size in down 65%. Taking a break to look at the newly created split-offs. Creating Other Redskins sports teams removed a lot from Native American mascot controversy but I also need to remove most of the sports team content from Redskin (slang).FriendlyFred (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Most impressive. Will have to take some time to re-read over again the new state of the article. — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nibbling at the edges, almost down to 100k, my goal. I have to admit to being an old-fashioned (and old) academic writer, in which density and lots of citations are positive things. However, admitting to the need for copy editing to make articles useful to the general public does not alter my opinion on the dumbing-down of public discourse in general, or WP in particular. How can it be otherwise, if WP content is mainly drawn from easily accessible online sources? Being a subject-area expert, which means being able to read dense academic sources and understand them well enough to cite them in articles while retaining a NPOV is not something that any WP admin should take lightly, and I am happy to accept some recognition for my work here.

ps. I have posted something relevant to Talk:Native_American_mascot_controversy#Article_size_and_splitting.

FriendlyFred (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Done for now ~100k.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. FriendlyFred is to be commended for the attempt to cut down the size of the article = which I determine was a success!
3. Lede sect = ", the full list of which can be found here." = please remove this link, and instead if you can find a secondary source or two that itself aggregates and makes a comment on the total number in opposition.
4. Meatsgains wisely suggested on the talk page a few sects that could be cut down or removed altogether and transitioned or moved to other pages. Some of those sects could still be trimmed at least a teensy weensy bit more. Those you could try looking at include: Protests and 2004 Annenberg survey.
5. Public opinion = suggest trimming each sub-sect a bit more, and then just having a paragraph on each topic, and remove the sub-sub-sect headers.

2. Verifiable?:

1. Consider going through and standardizing with WP:CIT templates.
2. Suggest using archiveurl= and archivedate= to archive hyperlinks for posterity.
3. Not necessary, but just optional to help improve the article -- otherwise, most meticulously and duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: YES the article is thorough, perhaps too thorough still a tad bit.

4. Neutral point of view?: I especially like the lede sect with regard to neutrality. The 3rd paragraph of the intro sect is excellent. This GA Review should be a strong indicator to cite in the future for those who question the article's neutrality = it is neutral. The GA Nominator has clearly gone out of his way to make sure it is neutral.

5. Stable? Passes here.

6. Images?: Passes here.

#NOTE: Please respond, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Lede sect = ", the full list of which can be found here." = please remove this link, and instead if you can find a secondary source or two that itself aggregates and makes a comment on the total number in opposition.
  • This is difficult, since the lists are compiled by advocacy groups and posted on web sites, such as ChangeTheMascot.org. Is this primary or secondary? Since it is a moving target, no one publishes a summary. Most RS are not even that concerned with the Redskins, they are about all NA mascots. Is it OR to compile a list, with sources for each item on the list, and then summarize that list by simply counting how many there? Is the problem the link to the list article, because before the split the lede just said "see below"?
• Some of those sects could still be trimmed at least a teensy weensy bit more. Those you could try looking at include: Protests and 2004 Annenberg survey.
  • Done what I could, but Public opinion is basically the only content that reflects support for the name other than the statements of the owner, staff, and NFL.

• Verifiable?:

• • I will clean up citations as needed.

FriendlyFred (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can find an article from a reliable secondary source like The Washington Post that gives a number? Even if it's a smaller number, that's okay for the lede intro sect in this article. In the other article, it's okay to summarize that number for that lede, as a higher number, per WP:LEAD. Make sense? — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Make sense? Not really... The logic of splitting a topic into separate but interdependent articles falls apart for me if there needs to be duplication of references because the related article cannot be used as support for another article's content. To me, a chain of venerability between linked articles makes sense.

What I have now is a ref to an NCAI report that is 90% the Redskins, but the introduction cited is talking about the total number of opponents to all mascots. The list of opposing tribes and organizations is in an appendix, and has much of the same content as the List article. Fine with me, I just want something that establishes that Native Americans are the prime movers in the controversy and represent a substantial portion of those opposing the name. The next sentence, that specifies the high percentage of the Native American population that is represented by the NCAI alone supports this also. Unfortunately this is arguing against prejudice. There is an assumption that in order to be a slur, a clear majority of all Native Americans must say it is, not just a significant number.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your difficulty, I'm just saying you can't use one Wikipedia article to cite another, even if article 2 is well cited itself. — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

FriendlyFred has done a most impressive job here and was quite responsive to feedback and polite during this GA Review. Many many thanks, — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tried trimming it down, still WAY too big

I've tried trimming it down, still WAY too big.

Please see my edit summaries for suggestions on where that material could go, to other pages on Wikipedia.

I'm NOT saying lose the material, I'm saying move it aggressively to other pages, and/or create new pages that house that info, and then very concisely summarize back here.

— Cirt (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, see all the DIFFs in-between here link. Article is still way too big. But getting better. I trimmed out a lot of fluff. And/or stuff that could be moved to other sub-articles or new-articles-to-be-created. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I should appreciate the help, but you interrupted my process which started only a few hours ago. What's the rush? I agree with most of the cuts, but know the material best, and where it should go; was in the process of creating an "Other Redskins" article were content from both this and the main controversy article could reside. My method of editing is to comment out, which makes it easier to move content than from DIFFs. There are multiple uses of named refs, one of which you broke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFred (talk • contribs)

Suggest in order to decrease page load-times you move the material to User:FriendlyFred/Redskins draft material pending to move elsewhere, and work on then moving it from there, to the new sub-pages you will create. — Cirt (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that I read TL;DR, taken to the degree demonstrated by these edits, as giving in to the problem described in "The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr. If WP is really an encyclopedia, not a collection of web pages, then to some degree content should drive the size and organization of articles as well as readership and comprehension. If the topic is too complex to be presented in bites small enough for the average reader, does that mean excluding content that actually would give a full understanding to anyone with a greater than average attention span? Is it likely that anyone will piece together 10 bite-sized articles to get the whole? Is any editor going to effectively maintain a topic so divided?

What the article needed was constant editorship as I was researching, to reign in my tendency to put in everything thinking it can always be taken out (but I didn't, and neither did anyone else: only punctuation and minor wordsmithing). After three years of not getting much useful feedback from anyone, the bloat was not going to be remedied in one day, and again I don't see the rush. If the size and complexity of the article was putting off all other editors, then some other admin should have said so on occasions where I requested help, or when they visited for other issues. This is the essence of the crowd being smarter than the individual, if it ever is.

I did not see your messages that you were starting a GA review, or even know your status and intentions, because I was continuing to do my own trimming of the article and did not know you were working until we collided.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not just myself but multiple editors that respectfully disagree, FriendlyFred. I'm going to have to strongly agree with the recommendations put forth by Meatsgains, in the section, directly above on this talk page. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Our disagreements are minor in my view, and I am working on substantial reductions that do not in fact vary much from the recommendations.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You are, in fact, doing GREAT work on that and making admirable progress so far, keep it up! :) — Cirt (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Down from ~293,400 to 177,000 bytes in the history in one day. Actually now the next day.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Down to 105,400 bytes and 209 inline citations. I expect a shitstorm of POV accusations from those that think every word said in defense of the name be here in full detail. In some sense they might be correct, this is no longer a controversy article. Using the criteria of notability and exclusion of unsupported opinion, there is little remaining except the strongly supported academics in the Controversy section, the large organization opinions in the Continuing calls for change section, etc, and only a few comments from the team website and newspapers to give the "keep the name" side of the controversy.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Article is way way way too big

Please don't comment in between my comments, below, but below all of them, thanks!

1. Article size is now way too big.
2. It is no longer readable.
3. It becomes very very very difficult and cumbersome to ask any reviewer to check five-hundred-and-fifty-four (554) citations.
4. There is no need to have lists of cited opinions from every single person, notable or otherwise, that every said anything about this issue.
5. I downloaded the entire text of this article to a notepad TXT file and got a size of 286 Kilobytes.
6. Suggest summary style, moving notable subsections to their own articles, and trimming this article in size down drastically.
7. By drastically I mean reduce in size by perhaps as much as eighty (80) percent.
8. Otherwise, no one is going to want to review this article, no one is going to want to read this article, and its inherent value decreases dramatically.

Summary of above: See TL;DR.

Please don't comment in between my comments, above, but below all of them, thanks!

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

---

1. Of course.
2. For its size, readable to me, but then I wrote most of it.
3. Now down to 378 citations, but POV critics seem to demand a cite for every sentence.
4. There is no need to have lists of cited opinions from every single person, notable or otherwise, that every said anything about this issue.I am a social scientist, not a sports fan so I can't judge notable. When I try to remove anything that supports the name, I get POV accusations.
5. Size is shrinking...
6. What's notable outside the main article?
7. Eighty (80) percent? I'll try for 50.
8. "its inherent value decreases dramatically" This concerns me...

Summary of above: See TL;DR.

NO. It is not readable. You are doing a disservice to our readers. IFF you feel strongly about this particular topic and want our readers to be more informed about the subject matter, you would do well to write a more concise article that they might actually read. — Cirt (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE:' Article size previously raised by others not myself at: Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy/Archive_1#Article_length_and_complexity and Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy/Archive_1#Article_size. — Cirt (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't claim to know much about the subject, but can we agree that article size should roughly correspond to significance? If so, at the current size, this issue should be roughly:

• 2.6 times as significant as Brown v. Board of Education
• 2.2 times as significant as Roe v. Wade
• 1.7 times as significant as Hate crime + Hate crime laws in the United States

Is it? Not in my opinion. In the first two cases, I didn't see any subarticles that should be included for a meaningful comparison. I chose the examples randomly, just pulling them out of the air; no cherry-picking occurred. Anyone is free to bring their own sample. If there is a consensus that the article is far too large, the question becomes who will do the trimming. Not me. Clearly, Fred feels strongly that there is no fat in the article, so how could he be expected to do the trimming? Perhaps we should just (1) drop the GA nomination for the time being, and (2) slap a maintenance template on it and see what happens. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandruss, I agree with your wise analysis, above. I do feel this is a very important issue dealing with a conflict between such topics involving profit, business, perceived racism, and perceived human rights issues. However I also agree with you that those four (4) other articles you cited are certainly more important and have more "core" value to Wikipedia and should be a good model for weight and size. I think I'll assume good faith with regards to the GA nominator, and allow some time for him to respond to the recommendations by myself, Mandruss, and Meatsgains, here on this talk page. I'll observe for a while and then likely end up drafting up a detailed point-by-point GA Review with recommendations and assessing the article against the Good Article quality criteria, and probably place the article as GA on Hold, at that point. — Cirt (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not read this thread before because I was in fact cutting down the article almost as suggested, but with the care that only someone familiar with the content was willing to do. I don't see the assumption that I would do otherwise as warranted by my previous behavior. There has been discussions, but no one previously made the observations that have only come to light by my own proposal for a GA review. Additional editorial interest was what I wanted to stimulate, but I wanted to be part of the solution, not assumed to be the source of the problem (e.g. that I saw "no fat" in the article). Apparently I have been correct in my view that working in the backwaters of WP is very different than editing highly visible topics, such as the examples of controversy cited above for comparison to this one. The first two, about single court cases, do not seem apt, being more limited in scope and likely having many RSs that give an overview. Hate Crime is a single term, so the comparison would be to Redskin (slang). This article is a part of a wide ranging, but little studied or understood issue: the implicit bias of mainstream American regarding Native Americans.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting and cleanup

The first split would likely be the lists of all the "Change the name" advocates, which should be uncontroversial, so I will create "List of Washington Redskins name change advocates". FriendlyFred (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

First go at pruning removed over 100 inline references.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I am at the point of harder decisions. Is the section on Protests sufficiently notable to have its own article. Should there be a single article for mascot protests, including those targeting the Cleveland Indians?FriendlyFred (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It reminds me of the feeling people get who are afflicted with the condition of hoarding. They get nervous and filled with anxiety and are seemingly unable to cut down their possessions, even if it makes their domicile unlivable. But in the end, they want a more useful house. And we want a more useful article. — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I previously suggested splitting the page into two separate articles but there was no consensus. Below is a list of the sections and subsection I suggest we simply remove as they are not notable and convolute the page:

1. Protests
2. Other teams that use the name redskins
3. Corporate sponsors
4. Maryland
5. Virginia
6. 2004 Annenberg survey
7. Washington Post
8. Online publications
9. Broadcast media
10. Advocates in sports for changing the name
11. Other opinions in sports
12. In popular culture

Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Meatsgains, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Protests are irrelevant to a controversy? Not notable on their own, perhaps an article about all mascot protests?
• Other teams that use the name redskins - I was in the process of creating this article when I collided with Cirt. Not sure what article name to use.
• Corporate sponsors are relevant, not notable on their own.
• DC and its MD and VA suburbs are one city, and I was born here. Could be summarized.
• 2004 Annenberg survey and its interpretation is a major issue in the controversy, although it should not be after 11 years.
• The Washington Post's editorial position is very significant
• Advocates in sports for changing the name, Other opinions in sports: I trimmed these, there can be no mention of individual opinions outside of the list of advocates article?

FriendlyFred (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@FriendlyFred:You're getting helpful specific feedback here from multiple different editors and coming across as a bit resistant to point-by-point recommendations on how to better improve the quality of this article. We want to help you. We're quite sorry you weren't able to get enough attention from the community to this article in the past, but you're getting it now. We certainly hope you will reconsider the above helpful recommendations from Meatsgains. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Building a consensus means having a dialog between different opinions. None of the points I made above could be interpreted as resistance. Some of them posed questions that have not been answered.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. But in this case we're talking about removal of sections from this article outright. We don't oppose adding them to another article or starting a different new article about them. But we feel that the article would benefit from removal of these sections. That's pretty much black-and-white. You seem to be against removal. Unfortunately that comes across as resistant to any large change being proposed. And it is a large change. But I strongly agree with this comment from Meatsgains: "Below is a list of the sections and subsection I suggest we simply remove as they are not notable and convolute the page". That would be a helpful start to moving forward constructively. — Cirt (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Down to ~100k while retaining Protests and the Annenberg study, local polls, and local politics.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture

I move the picture from the top to the team section because it implied that the article was about the team.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I bet you could fine some free-use-licensed pictures of protests you could add to Wikimedia Commons, perhaps? — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This flickr album is of a 2014 protest and is all appropriately licensed! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 15:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, got one for here and another for Native American mascot controversy.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Balance = two images for team, two of protests.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Mascot controversy

I am returning my attention to the core topic, Native American mascot controversy, which is now about ~137k. By applying the same principles; condensing, removing excessive details, and splitting, this might be cut by half, although I might then add more from academic sources. As the larger topic, should it be smaller than an article on one team?FriendlyFred (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

New poll

The Washington Post poll published this week as attracted several IP editors who are making too much of this one source. The controversy has been going on for decades, and this is one new piece of information, not a "this changes everything" moment. The facts about the poll are all that are needed, without excessive detail or editorial opinions. Several IP editors have made changes which I have reverted or modified. I have requested semi-protection to provide a cooling off period and to maintain this article's Good status.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The request for semi-protection was denied.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 WaPo poll Redskins

(The following was moved here from my talk page)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Expressing reluctance to place much significance on the 2016 Washington Post Poll, is biased at the very least. You say the facts of the poll are all that matters, and we really shouldn't spend too much time ( or as you imply " importance " )on it, ignoring ( momentarily ) the constant push by advocates and the media over the past 4 - 5 years, and then you don't want too much emphasis placed on the largest, most recent, credible poll that's been done on the subject in 12 years ?

If the " facts of the poll are all that matters ", then why the ( baseless )commentary on the methodology at the end ?

( Meanwhile, the methodology of the California Poll, is not questioned, even though the Poll was conducted by an advocate of changing the name, at Pow Wows in California, and one University, that only asked 98 Native Americans ) This is referred to as " alternative polling ".

Alternative ? That's a good one. Alternative .... Too funny.

Anyway, there should absolutely be emphasis placed on the Washington Post Poll as it is the most recent, largest, and credible, in spite of how many are dissapointed with the results.

And then we have the last baseless statement that it may not reflect Native American views.

Amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:4502:DAD4:C498:A346:1BEA:B69B (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The only reply I can make is that stating the facts on the new poll is all that can be done, since WP is limited to what its sources state. Going beyond the sources is original research. There has yet to be any definitive statement in any reliable source as to the poll's importance, but there have been many criticisms. The poll is presented as only one, not the definitive measure of Native American opinion even by the Washington Post editorial board which has reaffirmed its prior position that the name is offensive.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The anonymous editor whose post on my talk page I moved here apparently did not understand the note that discussions about a particular article should be made here. A subsequent message was posted, which I have delete. It is my assumption that an editor who does not take the simple step of creating an account is not serious.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Splitting opinion polls section into a new article

The polling section, and the additional information that has not been included, seems to warrent creating a new article. This would include material on the Sports Illustrated/Harris Poll done in 2002. The proposed title, "Washington Redskins name opinion polls" seems a bit long, but I can think of no alternative. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

More than a month without comment, doing the split.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative names

Can we please add a section for suggested alternate names?

e.g. Tomahawk - a Powhatan (Virginian Algonquian) word for a type of single-handed axe

2605:A000:1119:406B:31A3:D4A0:9A03:3A43 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Peacemaker

Any content supported by a reliable source that is not off-topic can be added, but I do not think anything about alternative names meet this criteria, but have been published for entertainment purposes only, and are unworthy of inclusion in a Good Article. Suggesting names without a source is original research.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Washington Redskins name 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/20131014154005/http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/most-indians-say-name-of-washington-redskins-is-acceptable-while-9-percent-call-it-offensive/ to http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/most-indians-say-name-of-washington-redskins-is-acceptable-while-9-percent-call-it-offensive/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151031052230/http://aiansip.org/uploads/SIP_Indian_Mascot_Position_Statement.pdf to http://aiansip.org/uploads/SIP_Indian_Mascot_Position_Statement.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Native-American-Chief-Talks-About-Redskins/cdb3c94e-f5c6-4d98-9acd-18d7fb768bb7

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed "citation needed"

The sentence in the lead section (Support for continued use of the name has come from the team's owners and a majority of fans, which include some Native Americans.) was tagged as needing citations. However, this is a summary of cited material in the body of the article: The owner's and management response, opinion polls of fans, and individual Native Americans supporting the team POV.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

UMD edits

UMD is my alma mater, and I welcome student participation. I have been hoping that the start of a new school year would bring the attention of editors to articles in the the topic area Native American mascot controversy, in particular Redskin (slang) which was the object of an editorial dispute this summer that was difficult to resolved because of low participation to reach a consensus. While any article can be improved, this one has remained remarkably stable since achieving GA status two years ago, but several articles were created to remove the bloat here during the GA review, and not all of these "daughter" articles have received sufficient maintenance and improvement. I have reverted both edits by User:Japhethtm, one because of duplication of content already present, the other as possible OR. Rather than needing additional content, this article has crept back above 100K in size, indicating the need for additional pruning. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

While the majority of recent changes have been prompted by the FA review, and made to address structural and formatting issues such as the consistency and correctness of citations, some changes in content have also been made. Usually this has been due to reading and re-reading sections which have not been revisited for some time and need updating due to their relative significance in the controversy has changed with the passage of time.

A large change has been that the SCOTUS decision has altered the meaning and significance of the trademark cases. Since there is an entire article giving the history and details of the cases, I have limited content here to the evidence supporting the legal decision that the name is disparaging, which stands although this is no longer a legal basis for cancelling the trademarks.

Today I have changed the title of a section from "Alternative Native American opinion in support of Redskins name" to "Individual Native American opinion..." to reflect that the content of the section represents the opinion of individuals not otherwise noteworthy except for their being mentioned in news items. The use of Alternative implies that such opinion has comparable weight to the Native Americans listed as change advocates who are noteworthy in their own right, many having their own WP articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup and reversion

I keep an eye on this article which has remained remarkably stable since achieving GA status. It has always been by some measures Too Long/Didn't Read, so pruning is always a good thing. The hot news about the spoof Washington Redhawks has gone nowhere after two years, so I tried to delete what I added while retaining a link to the small article I also created.

Perhaps the above explanation needed to precede that deletion, since it was reverted.

I also deleted another minor news item, which remains. I will likely make others changes, with better edit summaries including a reference to this section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with the attempt to reduce the size of the article, which has grown from the ~100k initial GA content to ~130k now. I have also nominated the Washington Redhawks article for deletion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Article revision when name changes?

It now seems inevitable that the team will be renamed, which means all the article content will be revised, and much will no longer be relevant.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It will always reflect the history of the situation. Notability is not temporary. BD2412 T 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, reworded not erased.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved the new content to Controversy section and did some cleanup and rewording.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Its official

Off-topic comment
They will either be called the Washington Trayvons with the logo of a pre-teen Trayvon Martin or they will be called the Washington Wokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:F8AD:567B:9F64:D516 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The team has now stated that both the name and logo will change.

The topic remains, but some present content becomes past tense, and the relative significance does change. I see some things that could be moved to the related articles, which will also change.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 19:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Washington Redskins name controversy → Washington NFL team name and logo controversy – Name and logo change WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The controversy is (or was) about the "Washington Redskins" name, and always will have been about that name. This is a distinct topic from whatever the name of the team is, now or in the future. BD2412 T 01:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Note. This is not a proposed erasure of history, the term Redskins will remain in the body of the article. I would just like to have a discussion about the title.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: As the nominator, you are supposed to provide "your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate" when proposing a name change to an article. It makes it very difficult to actually have a discussion about the title when you haven't done this. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is the name itself which is both the cause of the controversy and the topic of the article. --DB1729 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry if some people are offended by the term "Redskins" but Wikipedia is not censored, and that includes the article titles. The primary purpose of the article title is to help readers find the article that they are searching for. The proposed title is cryptic and potentially confusing for the average reader searching for the article on this topic. I would also note that the original proposer has provided no justification for this requested move. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It is the 'Redskins' part that was the controversial, not the Washington part. Red Jay (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The controversial part of the team name was the "Redskins". The team (and their Wikipedia page) have temporarily renamed themselves to the generic "football team" moniker, but this page should stay where it is. Also, nominator has failed to give any clear rationale about why this page needs moving. Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 10:12, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New sections needed for GA breadth

To remain rated as a Good Article, there should be a dedicated section on the resolution of the controversy, especially the final factors that went into the name change and the logistics of the name change itself. Right now it's pigeonholed into other sections of the article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Created new section and done general update to content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:18, 10 September 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): Japhethtm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup after name change

Now that the change is complete, I have removed some of the incidental events that are no longer significant.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence

@PRRfan:The opening sentence, following your reversion of my rewording is:

The Washington Redskins name controversy involved the name and logo previously used by the Washington Commanders, a National Football League (NFL) franchise located in the Washington metropolitan area.

This seems confusing, since the newly named Commanders had no existence prior to 2/2/22. The Redskins name and logo was used by the NFL franchise, the entity behind all the names (including Boston Braves and Boston Redskins), thus the cleared wording is:

The Washington Redskins name controversy involved the name and logo used from 1937 to 2020 by the National Football League (NFL) franchise located in the Washington metropolitan area. The resolution of the controversy began in July, 2020 when the temporary name "Washington Football Team" was adopted in response to economic pressure in the wake of widespread recognition of systemic racism; followed by the selection of Washington Commanders as the new name for the team on February 2, 2022.

Additional editing of the lede section will likely be needed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by "the cleared wording"; can you please explain? In any case, it's not true that the Commanders didn't exist before Feb. 2. The Commanders aren't a new entity; they're just the old team with a new name. My argument for putting the new name of the team first rests largely on WP:RECENTISM: right now, the controversy and name change are fresh in our minds, but soon enough readers are just going to know them as the Commanders, not "a National Football League (NFL) franchise located in the Washington metropolitan area". This is seen in articles about other teams that changed their names after public outcry; e.g., Washington Wizards, Tampa Bay Rays, and perhaps most pertinently, the Cleveland Guardians, renamed last year from "Indians". All of these simply use the new names in their lead sentences, because that's how people refer to them. PRRfan (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Cleared is a obvious typo > "clearer")

The encyclopedic significance of this topic is that an NFL franchise was identified by a term that is defined in the dictionary as insulting, but took decades to change; yielding not to good intentions or decency but to economic pressure. I cannot predict how readers may comprehend the article in the future, but few will think of the franchise as "Commanders" for some time, but "Washington", which they have had 18 months to get used to, and many fans prefer. Many will never let go of Redskins.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a typo; thanks for clearing that up. Fortunately, we have ample history to show how fans generally, and Wikipedia immediately, refer to a team that has changed its name: by its new name. PRRfan (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

...we have ample history...? Who is we? (Not me.) --WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the aforelinked articles demonstrate that Wikipedia moves on; e.g., here's the Cleveland Guardians page being moved from the Indians page the day the new name was announced. As for fans? I'm hunting for, and not immediately finding, evidence that fan bases continue to call renamed teams by their old names. But the diehards aren't really the point, are they? Future readers, a much larger group, will be increasingly likely to refer to the team using its current name. Who talks about the Washington Bullets anymore? PRRfan (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course WP moves the main articles when the real-world entity is renamed, which forces a change of all the wikilinks that include it. Sometimes this is piped (new | old), sometime not, depending upon the editors decision regarding reader understanding. I have been editing the mascot articles including this one since ~2012, and was born in DC over 70 years ago. My estimation is that the media are also forced to immediately use Commanders, but the average Washingtonian will take years to catch up, either saying "Washington" which they have had 18 months to get used to; or "Redskins" which they have used all their lives. A large factor is that Commanders is such a weak, generic name, which I have seen critiqued as what a team would be called on a tv show. My use of "NFL franchise" in a sentence about the transition of a real entity from one brand name to another is comprehensible now and will be in the future; it is encyclopedic, and makes no attempt to predict what various readers may comprehend in the near term.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree with you about the quality of the new name. And surely you've no need to argue from authority; if there is relevant precedent in the mascot articles you have worked on, or anywhere else, do please bring it forth. In the meantime, I will note that there is a reason that WP articles change to refer to a team's current name: because that's the encyclopedic way to do it, whether the average Washingtonian has caught up or not. PRRfan (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pro Football Hall of Fame (24937970248).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations in the lead section

I have always followed the guideline MOS:CITELEAD, not duplicating citations in the opening section when summarizing content that appears in the body of the article unless the reader is likely to find that content controversial or otherwise in need of immediate support. That the new team name was announced could not be less controversial, so the need for one citation is already overkill without the addition of two more. I have moved the citation of the press release to the "Name change" section, and expanded the content to justify its inclusion there. I will do the same with the NFL statement, and may also remove the Washington Post citation from the lead, since it also duplicated in the article. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The NFL citation is more marketing of the new name, not about the topic of the article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Poll criticism grammar error

Seeking to rectify a grammar error ("...was criticism...") and clarify the point, I changed this text:

Supporters asserted that a majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name based upon a national poll by Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2004. The use of public opinion polling methods to measure the opinions of a small, diverse population was criticism by scholars, in particular the use of self-identification to select the individuals surveyed.

to

Supporters also pointed to a national poll taken in 2004 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which found that a majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name—though scholars called the poll flawed because it depended on respondents to self-identify as part of a small, diverse population.

@WriterArtistDC: partially reverted my change (with the edit summary: "Restore wording per source"), to:

...The use of public opinion polling methods to measure the opinions of a small, diverse population was criticism by scholars, in particular the use of self-identification to select the individuals surveyed.

This reversion has restored the grammar error and introduced a punctuation error (since corrected). We don't have to keep my wording, but we need to fix the sentence. Moreover, I can't find the source the edit summary is alluding to. WriterArtistDC, can you point it out? PRRfan (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Typo fixed, link to citation added.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Note on team name history

@Wtmitchell: - Your added note essentially duplicates the content of the first paragraph in the History section, so I fail to see the need for it. WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed seeing that, but I did. I've removed the note, but I've added a Further reading section mentioning the The Redskins Encyclopedia book source it had cited. I had added the note to provide missing info after seeing that book while looking on the web for more info about this on the web. You point out that most of that info was already in the article; some is not, but I just don't have enough interest in this to try to integrate additional info from that source into the existing article content -- I'm not a good wordsmith.

• Page 3 there has info that it was common at the time of the team's establishment for NFL teams to use the name of their home city baseball team, and the name change from Braves to Redskins came about because of the move from the Boston Braves stadium to the one used by the Boston Red Sox --unless I missed it, that is not in the article, and I think that WP:NPOV § WP:DUE calls for it.
• The sidebar box headed An Enduring Logo on Page 87 should also be cited at appropriate points in the article, I think.

Some of that info and supporting cites of that book probably also ought to appear in other related articles such as Washington Commanders and History of the Washington Commanders if it's not already in there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, we all have our focus, mine being the mascot controversy, not football. I never bothered to wade through a book written for R*skins fans when I had more accessible references. Yes, the team's move to Fenway is already in the article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)