Talk:Chief Wahoo/Archive 1

PC

This page is replete with politically correct, but specious, arguments about Chief Wahoo being racist. Chief Wahoo is the symbol of a baseball team. Compare the Confederate Flag, which stood for enslaving blacks, or the Nazi swastika, which stood for dominating Europe and killing Jews, with the baseball team logo. The worst thing the team has done is fail to win the World Series since 1948, which as far as racist evil goes is not even in the same universe as the Stars and Bars or the swastika.Hanksummers (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)hanksummers

All material must be sourced in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and the policy on original research. No claims can be made in this article without first having a source. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The article doesn't say the symbol is racist, it says that many people think it is, and provides evidence. And the U.S. government and citizens did plenty of bad things to the Indians - killing them, killing off their food supply, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That some, relatively small, number of "people" (see the cited Sports Illustrated article) believe the symbol to be racist is interesting but does not make for facts. Wikipedia is it supposed to be fact-based, and not a forum for left wing or right wing opinions dressed up as facts. I say it is supposed to be fact based, and PC-opinions of minor minorities should have no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksummers (talk • contribs) 17:41, April 14, 2008 (UTC)

Denying that those opinions exist and have created publicity, is another kind of political correctness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as the saying goes, opinions are are like, well let's say noses, everyone has one. Specious opinions about baseball team logos get treated like facts if you say them often enough, apparently. Hanksummers (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Previous incarnations

I added in info about previous team logos, which featured a more realistic indian in profile, and provided a link to the Chris Creamer team logo site showing such logs, and it was summarily deleted for being too controversial and unsourced. What gives? Hanksummers (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that "realistic" is the proper adjective. More "traditional", maybe, but still stereotypes. It would make more encyclopedic sense to say simply that they were done in profile, until the logos introduced in the late 40s and mid-50s, which were done three-quarters face. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Realistic" is the proper word, given the state of American commercial graphic arts at the time, but "traditional" is acceptable. I am going to put that info back in, using "traditional".Hanksummers (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, at least one of them looked kind of like the profile on the "Buffalo nickel", only not so realistic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a general rule of thumb: if you're relying purely on images on another website to demonstrate a point that isn't written down anywhere else, it's synthesis. You must have written, sourced statements to back up the claims you're making or else those claims are original research. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hence I changed it to simply say they are sketched profiles. No factual ambiguity, no editorial judgment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, I won't revert that change since it doesn't claim anything outside of what's in the pictures. The source is horrible though and I strongly disagree with using that website as a reference. Academic or more professional sources should be sought on the issue. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you dispute the veracity or accuracy of the logos on Creamer's website, then provide proof rebutting him. That site has been around since 1997 and is quite accurate. Sticking your nose up in the air and saying it is "horrible" without proof of why it is so horrible is a weak opinion and does not contribute anything to the conversation. IMHO Hanksummers (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The burden has never fallen on the challenging editor to prove that a source isn't reliable. It is always the editor who is including the material that must demonstrate the reliability of a source. To answer your question, "Chris Creamer's Sportslogos.net" is unreliable since it does not undergo editorial review, it is nonacademic and there is nothing to indicate Chris Creamer is an expert in the field of sports logos, nor is there anything that indicates the logos on his website are correct since he is not related to the agency that created them. It is one step above a blog and a new source should be found immediately to replace it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I reckon it's the best we've got for now. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out what the phrase "honorifics like Chief Bender" is supposed to mean. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the Okkonen book, the first use of an Indian head profile did occur in 1928, but Okkonen's rendering looks nothing like the 1928 rendering, and very little like the others shown in that guy's website. If those logos were used, they weren't on the uniforms. I'm inclined to remove the given reference and go with the Okkonen reference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Chief Wahoo (mascot character).svg

The image File:Chief Wahoo (mascot character).svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased

This is completely ridiculous wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, all I saw on that page was the bitter views of some disgruntled losers who most likly have no relation to actual native americans. And if you do it probably means your ancestors raped an indian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.62.139 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Chief Illiniwek to this is degrading to all those who support our tradition and Chief. It is freedoms, but this is an example of what is truly damaging, and what can be seen a middle ground. There is a difference here.--139.67.194.113 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Chief Wahoo is still the Cleveland Indians' mascot

this is wrong. Chief Wahoo is still the Cleveland Indians' mascot. Slider is used only in the stadium. And where did 1998 come from? Slider has been around since '92-'93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.131.91 (talk) 14:54, April 16, 2007 (UTC)

Just going by what the source says.++aviper2k7++ 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the date of the source- 1 April 1998. It was a prank. I'm removing that information. 130.101.20.142 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So having watched the Cleveland Indians on April 29,2007, and clearly seeing a Red Indian (Chief Wahoo) on their caps, is it safe to say he is still a mascot for the team? Your source is nuts. Check out with website www.clevelandindians.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deh317 (talk • contribs) 19:43, April 30, 2007 (UTC)

I live in Cleveland and I'd certainly say so. Slider is just a character that appears in games. What would he have to do with Indians anyway? Sseballos 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding header... six years later. Levdr1lp / talk 13:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Article rating

Levdr1, I notice that you rated this article C-class. I am not entirely familiar with the article rating scheme, but I'm guessing that you see some room for improvement here. Are there any issues you think I can address to improve the article? Thank you! Anotherpioneer (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Anotherpioneer- I wasn't rating the article "C" so much as I was rating it higher than "stub" and "start". Clearly the article has improved in recent months, but I generally feel higher ratings require greater consensus. And while I'm originally from Northeast Ohio (and an active member of WikiProject Cleveland), I focus primarily on radio and related media. Your best bet for feedback is to contact members of the relevant WikiProjects linked above. I would start with the talk pages for WikiProject Baseball and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Keep up the excellent sourcing. Levdr1lp / talk 00:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article length

Is this article an appropriate length for the subject matter? My thoughts on just coming across it are that it goes into a bit too much unnecessary detail. I understand this is a complex issue with a long history, but this article is bordering on being 'List of every individual and organisation that has ever commented on Chief Wahoo'. Do we really need so many different quotes to make the point that lots of people don't like this mascot? Robofish (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that length is getting a little out of hand. This isn't meant to be a repository for everything ever said about Chief Wahoo. Levdr1lp / talk 00:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I came here to add a reference I found while researching the Washington *skins, but I would not know where to begin contributing to this article. (Mark Naymik (October 10, 2013). "Washington Redskins' mascot controversy makes Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo look even more stupid and racist". Cleveland.com. Retrieved October 11, 2013.) FriendlyFred (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting rid of the quotes in the refs now to make it possible to load, but even after that, we're still looking at 109kb of readable prose in the article, which is too long. If we can at least get that down to about 80kb, then we could work with that. Wizardman 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Virtue signaling has no limitations, hence the tendency for these types of articles to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:e101:d8c9:3cf6:48e7:1178:4582 (talk) 19:43, July 23, 2021 (UTC)

Block "C" now Cleveland Indians "primary logo"?

Per UniWatch, via Cleveland Scene. Levdr1lp / talk 06:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Update Indians rep is now denying the report. Levdr1lp / talk 07:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now a third source is questioning the Indians' denial. Levdr1lp / talk 07:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Lukas, who first tweeted the report, has posted a story over the conflicting reports at ESPN.com. Levdr1lp / talk 09:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chief Wahoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is going to be a quick fail, I am afraid. First, there are still valid maintenance tags (the lead is incredibly short for such an incredibly long article), which brings me to another point, the length. This article is not written in summary style, and frankly, some information is irrelevant to Chief Wahoo. For example, look at the 1970s scoreboard animations section. " At 137-by-54 feet with an 86-by-29-foot lighted screen, the scoreboard was described as the largest "single unit board" in the country. Animation was provided by Hilda Terry, creator of the comic strip Teena.[13] Technical difficulties blamed on weather conditions and pollutants from Lake Erie initially prevented the scoreboard from working properly," does not relate at all whatsoever to the subject of this article. Around the time Bavasi added Chief Wahoo to the Indians hats in 1986, he also banned "derogatory" banners at the stadium.[18] The elimination of references to Cleveland on the uniforms, including replacing the old style hats with Chief Wahoo, led to speculation that the team might be moved to another city.[18][19] This sub-storyline of moving to another city is completely irrelevant.

It's hard to believe, but there is also missing information. For example, in the Move to Progressive Field section, The team considered dropping the logo around this time,[1][2] but it was ultimately retained. They considered dropping the logo/mascot, and that warrants only one clause? Why did they consider that? What made them keep it? It is baffling to me that warrants no coverage, but pedantic details on the scoreboard do.

Also on that section, at least part of the final paragraph belongs in a criticism section or something, but has little to do with the action of moving to Progressive/Jacobs Field. Then we somehow jump to 2009. How exactly does that make sense? And then we jump back to the early 1990s? The allegations of a phase out are hardly part of "history".

The stakeholders' beliefs section needs to be renamed; how exactly do you determine who is a "stakeholder"?

I almost wonder if the criticism of the logo belongs in a new article as a content fork. It seems to make the article excessively long.

The notable protests section is also sort of arbitrarily thrown in, and makes no sense sequentially.

So for the aforementioned reasons, I must fail the article, as it does not meet the good article criteria at this time. However, obviously, much work has gone into crafting a compelling narrative, and the article seems to be meticulously cited, so consider this a "peer review" on how this article can achieve the criteria. This is a tough subject, and you have done a lot of great work, it just needs refinement at this time. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

In advance of the split, I am doing cleanup which includes removal of multiple citations from the same source within a paragraph, but rather placing a single citation at the end of the paragraph.FriendlyFred (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• There is also an excessive number of subsections. FriendlyFred (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)