Talk:Chief Illiniwek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Wilson, Jason Carlson (September 21, 2006). "Chief Illiniwek: Putting up dancing shoes". The Rock River Times.

The following is interesting but it's more suitable for the Talk page because it has too many contradictions with the rest of the article. Also needs some NPOV-ing before it can be added back into the main article. --68.77.119.35 20:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The dance is not religious whatsoever. The university doesnt doesnt aim to mimic any religion. The dance style is called fancy dancing. It was created in the 1940s so Native Americans from different tribes and cultures could meet and have dance competitions. Since most dances were very religious, and therefore, different for every tribe, they created this very flamboyant dance style which had no religious overtones. Furthermore, there were many more than nine universities which have had Native American mascots. Several do today, including Florida State University and University of North Dakota.

"significant majorities among ... current undergraduates"

I thought it was closer to fifty-fifty for undergrads, but that may be based off of old statistics... --69.214.226.102 09:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The referendum you cite below was closer to two-thirds for keeping the chief, but that excludes the majority of campus who didn't care enough to vote. Thesquire 15:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"The University Board of Trustees, despite the efforts of several members, has avoided resolving the issue through a direct vote."

I thought there was a campus-wide referendum question for it last year as a part of the student council vote. (The other referendum question was whether or not students wanted to pay $1 for an Asian-American culture house.) --69.214.226.102 09:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but referenda mean jack - the BoT has sole control over the issue. Thesquire 15:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] How do I dispute or requets a change to the article?

Under the "Contraversy" section, a 2002 Peter Harris Research Group study is cited as the only scientifict study of American Indain people's opinions on Indian mascots.

I disagree with calling this a scientific study. To be sure, they probably used scientfici methods. Hoever, this study was done for and published in Sports Illustrated. It was never submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and requests by other researchers to review the methods of the study have been denied. (See the Feruary 2004 article in the Journal of Sport and Social Issues by Charles F. Springwood; http://jss.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/28/1/56.pdf)

The Peter Harris Group study therefore does not adhere to the standards of scientific research and should not be referred to a science. In fact I think its important to note in the article that it was done for Sports Illustrated not a scientific publication and has not been submitted for peer-review.

  • You came to the right place - just remember to put four tildes after your name when you post on a talk page so that others can identify what you've written. I've already added mention of the academic paper in question, while trying to keep NPOV. Thesquire 04:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Gallup or Harris polling organizations also do not submit their polls to "a peer-reviewed scientific journal ." There is no such requirement for a poll to be considered a scientific poll. Edison 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

It might be an idea for someone with a digital camera to go to a UIUC football or basketball game and take a picture or two of the Chief for the article. All its got is the logo right now. Thesquire 20:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

I just did a fairly-massive edit of the page. It was *extremely* [POV] and used terms like "racist." Furthermore, it had loads of irrelevant information designed to sway readers into feeling the Chief should be retired. I'm starting to think this page might be a candidate for protection from editing. 129.105.104.223 23:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OR We could just keep reverting back to the normal text that's been defaced. Your edit removed a lot of facts that were originally in the article. As such, I'm reverting the article back to 23:23 1 December. Unless additional information gets added (for example, the NCAA appeal proceeds further, etc.), this should be the default text. Thesquire 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
My plaudits to those who have contributed to this article. The version that stands today does quite an able job at describing this thorny controversy in a neutral way. Those with the time and access to source material could probably add detail to the 'Controversy section regarding some of the milestones in the controversy in recent years, the steps taken (as well as those not taken) by the University's Board of Trustees, as well as the local and statewide reaction. JonRoma 02:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I considered that, but the history of the article seemed so muddled, I wouldn't even know where to begin in reverting it. I apologize, but I figured since there was no discussion on the editing of the page, it had been continually hijacked at there might not have BEEN a reliable original. Also, although it is much better, there are still some POV issues in the article. "The American Pyschological..." has NOTHING to do with objectively describing Chief Illiniwek; that sentence exists merely to sway the reader. Native American statistics and whatnot also seem incredibly tangent to the issue at hand.129.105.104.241 18:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Normally how editing works is that small edits don't get discussed unless someone takes issue with them and they get challenged. Your major deletion, however, was by no means small, hence my reversion. Just because the facts of the issue don't all go towards a pro or anti-Chief agenda doesn't mean that they get excluded. For example, the APA quote does have a bearing on the effects of the Chief and one of the reasons that some oppose the mascot. It also segues nicely into the NCAA ban section. Thesquire 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't care that you reverted the article back at all! I think as is, it is a better article; I was merely saying why I did a massive edit. It was easier for me to read the former article and take out/edit everything I felt had been put there by an obviously anti-Chief hijacker than wade through the revisions. NORMALLY, there is extensive talk about controversial subjects. I still think some parts of the article are either out-of-place or simply not relevant enough to the issue, but whatever, as long as its not calling the Boy Scouts a "paramilitary" organization, I can live with it.
  • That was someone else vandalizing the page. If you hadn't removed that text, I would've. Thesquire 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, well, forgive me. Next time, I'll just consult my mind-reading function and I'll know that ahead of time.
  • Or, you could look through the history page and see that just one person had done that recently, and that previous instances of vandalism like that are usually swiftly reverted. Thesquire 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Look, I left the page better than I found it. I thought that was sort of the *point* of having a wiki-based encyclopedia. I humbly apologize that I didn't spend an hour of my life poring through the detailed history of the page edits (100+ in just a few months...) to discover for myself that Thesquire was Soverign Lord of the Chief Illinwek page. You should put that on the top of the page. 129.105.35.108 17:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
129.105.35.108: No one person is sovereign lord of this or any page; Wikipedia is a contribution by many, with the idea that our mutual contributions make the content better than any of us could individually. While your contributions are welcome, most contributors find it advisable to look at the discussion page and at least the recent history, in order not to cover ground that's already been covered and to avoid making needless work for yourself or others. I'm sure that Thesquire was just frustrated about this point. Since you have an IP address and not a login of your own, I can't determine whether you're a newcomer, but if you are, welcome aboard. You may want to look at the faux pas avoidance page. If you're unsure about whether something you want to do is "proper" or whether it makes sense, feel free to inquire via the discussion page; that's what it's for. — JonRoma 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I went to both and made a quick decision to make the page PRESENTABLE and start a discussion to see if there was anyone who was actually trying to make the aritcle encyclopedic. "Sovereign Lord" was sarcasm for goodness sakes. Thesquire aparently has taken it upon himself to be the one who always corrects errors and maintains the aricle as written the exact way he wants it. I've been on wikipedia for awhile now, and I have a username but my work causes me to use multiple computers so its a pain to always log-in, so I don't really need the beginner lecture or the faux pax page (which is a rather dumb thing anyway, IMHO). 206.221.224.35 04:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, someone keeps editing ANY changes that even even up the page, at all, it is soo anti-chief right now, just to sway the reader it is not good journalism, and the facts are NOT correct really at all, lets keep some of the emotions either way out of this and add what we know to be FACTS and let people to decide. Make it just facts and not opinion. Tuesday Janurary 24 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.125.251.35 (talk • contribs) .

(Reseting indent) JonRoma and I have been reverting your changes. I can't speak for JonRoma, but as for myself I reverted your first batch for a number of reasons. First, you deleted the paragraph about schools no longer playing against UIUC athletics teams. That's a fact whether you like it or not. Secondly, you removed links to outside articles that happened to either support the anti-chief agenda or call into question pro-chief claims, which constitute POV edits. The bit about the Illiniwek "sadly" being unable to vote as the seminoles did also implied a POV. The referendum's already been addressed on this talk page, but if you want to include it you need to find a more neutral way of doing so. Your further assertions about Ogala Sioux support need to be verified, as do your claims about the fate of the Illiniwek. Lastly, Wikipedia isn't an exercise in journalism per se, and false balance is discouraged (again, see WP:NPOV). -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My reverts have followed similar reasoning to that of Thesquire. Removal of factual content that does not support one's beliefs is inappropriate, as is addition of one's own views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog where one gets to pursue a political agenda. An example of a statement that doesn't belong here is:
The University Of illinois studnt banded together to seek a consensus between themselves, which came out thus close to 70% in favor of saving the Chief, thus showing that the university does back its symbol. Supporters and those who wish that he would be retired seem continue this fight, but it seems that the student body does wish for it to stay.
Ignoring the awkwardness of the statement, the big problems are the assertions that "the university does back its symbol"and "it seems that the student body does wish for it to stay".
The first statement is factually inaccurate given that there continues to be a difference of opinion within the University of Illinois (students, faculty/staff, administrators, and even the board of trustees).
The second statement is also not supported by the facts. It is true that the nonbinding student referendum results in March 2004 did show 70% of the votes cast in favor of the Chief, but the fact is that just over one third of the student body cared enough about the issue to bother to cast a vote in the online balloting. According to an Associated Press story of the time, out of approximately 38,000 students making up the Urbana-Champaign student body, around 9,100 students voted in favor of the mascot and about 4,000 voted against. The assertion that "the student body does wish for [the mascot] to stay" is hardly supported by these facts.
A factual statement about the referendum is certainly legitimate content for this page, but an attempt to cast that referendum as representing overwhelming support for one side constitutes POV, to say nothing of expressing one's own conclusions. Report the facts, quote press accounts about the different sides of the controversy, but leave the conclusions to the readers to make on their own. — JonRoma 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that the Illiniwek tribes had been removed, as well as a link to the article about the tribes. I don't know why the fate of the tribes had gone previously unmentioned. Additionally, while I did not have the heart to delete it, what does the sentence about the tribe being "wiped out" by fellow Native Americans mean? The tribes still exist, so they have never been wiped out. They were however expelled from Illinois by what could be characterized as "European aggression", although it's not appropriate for the article to discuss that. Someone please change or delete that sentence. Additionally, the term "remaining descendants" was not appropriate since it implies that the tribes are dwindling entities, an unnecessary and unsubstantiated implication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.212.130.119 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I have removed the part about being "wiped out," since it is probably a reference to the apocryphal stories in the Illiniwek article. The Illiniwek tribes were in no sense wiped out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.212.130.119 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian

In my recent edit, I reverted the restoration of the previously-deleted word caucasian to the description of how the person portraying Chief Illiniwek is chosen.

If someone can verify that none of the students who have portrayed the chief throughout history has been Native American or a person of color, that a factual statement to that effect is appropriate for addition to the article.

However, the statement as it stood before my revert implies that membership in the caucasian race is one of the criteria used to select the person portraying the chief; this is clearly not true and serves to mislead. — JonRoma 06:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it says elsewhere in the article that the Chief has never been portrayed by a Native American, although that's the extent to which I can help. Personally, I think the addition of the word Caucasian is redundant to that statement. Thesquire 08:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

As far as I know, it's bad style to capitalize every instance of 'university' (as noted at Talk:Daily Illini. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes "bad style" depends on the style rules of the publication for which you're writing. So, the definition of proper style varies — an absolute concept of good vs. bad style doesn't exist as in the case of grammar or spelling.
That said, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says that names of institutions says that proper names of specific institutions are proper nouns and require capitalization. Descriptive words like "university" do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. — JonRoma 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a distinction in articles related to the University. When it is the first time referring to the university in a paragraph (or maybe section), it should be capitalized as it is short for the University of Illinois, and thus a proper noun. Afterwards (in the same paragraph or section), "the university" is unambiguous and thus doesn't need to be a proper noun. Does this make sense? -- Superdosh 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The WP:MoS makes no such distinction. The fact that "university" [in this article] is shorthand for a specific entity does not magically turn a simple noun into a proper noun that requires capitalization."New York City" and "Lake Michigan" are proper nouns, but "the city" and "the lake" are not.
There's not much danger of ambiguity about which University is referred to in an article about a University of Illinois subject. However, where there is a need to avoid an ambiguous reference, then it's properly done by stating "University of Illinois" or "U of I", both of which are proper nouns and which would be properly capitalized as shown. — JonRoma 07:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toilet paper

I've spoken with a professor that's been at the UIUC a while, and she told me the Chief was relatively uncontroversial until the symbol started appearing on toilet paper. Now, it did at some point appear on toilet paper [1], but I can't find a source that suggests that this was the impetus. Maybe someone else knows something or is more skillful with Google? -- Superdosh 06:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As far back as the 70s, American Indian organizations have made statements about the use of Indian imagery as sports mascots and to sell products. I don't think it was the image on toilet paper that got the movement to retire Chief Illiniwek started; the impetus was more likely due to the enrollment of Native students at UIUC. Debbie Reese 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Debbie Reese

[edit] Former symbol?

Is this statement (just added 24 July 2006) true? "Chief Illiniwek is a former symbol of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." Badagnani 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dance

While it may be true that in the past the dance was changed a little by each person, that is no longer the case. The dance has been the same for quite some time. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.139.196.12 (talk • contribs).

For how many years has it been exactly the same? Badagnani 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChief_Illiniwek_838f.html"