Talk:Cleveland Indians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Ohio Portal

Cleveland Indians is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-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 current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Broncos or Bronchos

It seems unclear whether the 1902 version of the Indians were called the Broncos or Bronchos. The Indians web page as well as the book Our Tribe, by Terry Pluto say the Broncos. Terry Pluto did a whole chapter on the team name, although the emphasis was on the Indians name. Some web pages say "Bronchos", though. It is unclear whether Bronchos is misspelling or Broncos is a modern simplification of a strange spelling.

Sites that use the Bronchos spelling include The Baseball Hall of Fame, baseball-reference.com, The Cleveland Indians Encyclopedia, and the Baseball Almanac. Google returns 448 hits for "cleveland bronchos" and 95 for "cleveland broncos". EurekaLott 23:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this was probably not an "official" nickname. In fact, the team did not even wear an Indian logo on their uniforms until 1928. Prior to that it was generally a 'C' at home and 'CLEVELAND' on the road. According to my dictionary, BRONCO is the preferred spelling, being taken directly from the Spanish, with BRONCHO as an alternate. And there was an NFL Hall-of-Famer named BRONKO Nagurski. If someone gets real desparate, maybe they could actually do some original reasearch, by sifting through the microfilm files of the Plain Dealer starting in 1900 when the team was first put there, and finding out what the real story is. Wahkeenah 17:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Included Names

Are all of these names included: Sonny Siebert, Steve Hargan, Sam MacDowell, Rick Sutcliffe; Leon Wagner, etc. -- 65.223.141.108 (Talk)

[edit] Sockalexis name origin

Why does this page insist that the team wasn't named after Sockalexis? It was, at least indirectly. When the Naps needed a new name, the sportswriters chose "Indians" because that's what the 19th-century N.L. club was called. And the N.L. called was called that because of Sockalexis. The Indians' media guide and Web site (the latter cited as a source for the Wikipedia article) say the team has its name because of Sockalexis. What do the Wikipedians know that the Indians' flaks don't? -- 63.174.21.30 (Talk)

What they know that the "conventional wisdom" (including the editor of the Indians' media guide) does not know, is that Terry Pluto, who actually researched the issue for his book, The Tribe, learned that the inspiration for the name Indians in 1915 was primarily the stunning success of the Boston Braves in the 1914 World Series. The fact that the defunct National League team of 1897-98-99 was sometimes called the "Indians", due to Sockalexis' presence on the squad, was a factor in the decision, but was not the main reason. Wahkeenah 04:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone give a reference where the team is referred to as the "Redskins" either today or in the past in the same way "The Tribe" is used? I've been a fan of the Tribe since I was a kid in the 70's and I have never heard or read were the team has been referred to by that nickname. I feel that when listing nicknames for any team that only nicknames promoted by organization or currently embraced by supporters of the team should be included. Any commonly used nicknames of the past that have fallen out of use, I believe, should only be noted if it can be referenced as being in use once. StrayKat 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I'm amazed there's nothing here about the controversy over the logo. (I'm seeing what I can find in good references.) - David Gerard 22:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Has there even been any controversy recently? I know there was a lot of complaining about the Indians and the Braves in the mid-1990s, but I thought that had kind of died out when they complainers were basically ignored. I do know that the Portland Oregonian made an editorial decision a few years ago to not refer to Native American nicknames, just the team names (i.e. "Cleveland" always, "Indians" never). I wonder if they are still doing that? Wahkeenah 00:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Marc Okkonen's book on baseball uniforms indicates that The Tribe first wore an Indian logo on their 1928 jerseys, a profile of a conventional Indian a la the Buffalo nickel only with a fuller headdress. "Chief Wahoo" first appeared on the 1947 jersey. Presumably we have Bill Veeck to thank for that. Wahkeenah 02:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's one article that talks about this a bit. [1] Wahkeenah 02:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The plot thickens. This article says there was a comic strip Chief Wahoo that preceded the Indians' logo by more than a decade, and I'm guessing it was the inspiration for the logo. [2] Wahkeenah 02:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Being a local Clevelander, and from what I've seen of these "logo protests", there is just a handful of Native Americans involved, and I heard from past local news reports, these people don't even live around here. I think their "leader" is some guy from Canada, and I've never seen more than ten at most who picket during the games. Usually it's like 3 to 5 people (if any at all), and the fans just blow them off. They aren't allowed on the property (or so a Jake security guard friend of mine said) so they protest on the sidewalk outside the main gate. It's such a trivial deal to Indian fans around here and none of them really care. I'm sure the logo is here to stay. Cyberia23 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing at the Baseball Hall of Fame a photograph from the 1910s or 1920s of a large group of Native Americans in ceremonial dress being honored on the field at an Indians game. I wish I could find a record of it online. The caption stated that they regarded the name of the team positively, and the fact that they would turn up for the affair would seem to suggest that was in fact the case. Sylvain1972 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shapiro Years

The Shapiro Years section, especially the 2006 off-season, is far too long. The Crisp trade needs to be set in context - perhaps one sentence, two at most, not a lengthy paragraph. Tytrain 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They could do it in chapters. It would be a Coco Crisp serial. Wahkeenah 00:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly Mascot

"Cleveland, city of light and the Cleveland Indians. Nice logo, Cleveland! I have never thought of myself as being a politically correct person, but even I find the Cleveland Indians logo appalling, that Sambo-ized Red Man with the shit-eating grin. If you wear a Cleveland Indians cap in New York, you might get away with claiming it’s an ironic gesture, but it you wear one in Cleveland, you mean it." User:132.241.245.49 04:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a classic. d:) Wahkeenah 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graves flag

I am changing the flag next to Danny Graves from Vietnam to the USA. I think the flag should represent one's nationality and not one's birthplace. As far as I know Graves has never identified himself as a national of Vietnam and has lived the a total of 14 months out of 33 years. Montco 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[3]Kinston eagle 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Adams

Any thought of mentioning John Adams, the drum beater in the stands? There was a great article written about him last July, around the 9th (unfortunately it's gone from cleveland.com now and apparently never has been in the long-term archive). Mapsax 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in working on or contributing to a John Adams article. Are you still interested Mapsax? Schneau 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forest City club and National League era sections

Not sure how they directly relate to the Indians. I would eliminate both of those sections entirely, but perhaps some mention of baseball in Cleveland before the Indians is necessary for the article. DandyDan2007 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The information is interesting but the material belongs in articles on the older teams. Since the article has been tagged as being too long this would be an easy way to shorten it.--Beirne 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We've got vandals

So as the indians get closer to the world series, looks like we've got some idiot vandals. i'm fixing the ones i spot, but could we please get an admin to protect this page? thanks. - preschooler @heart 05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You can request page protection at WP:RFPP. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Impossible Return??

'The Impossible Return' is quoted twice on the page, once in the body of the article and once in the trivia referring to the Indians 12-run comback against Seattle in 2001. I am from the Cleveland area and quite an avid follower of the team (and watched the specific game this refers to). I do not recall anyone (newspapers, broadcasters, fans, etc.), during or since refer to this game as 'The Impossible Return'. It seems like something sweet the person added to the article to give it some flavor -- but it should be backed up with fact that it used by an outside source, which is a wikipedia rule. If it cannot be backed-up, it should not be titled as such. If you say: 'The Drive', 'The Fumble', 'The Shot', sports fans know exactly what you are talking about. Say: 'The Impossible Return', you might get a puzzled look at best. BarenakedKevin 22:33, 15 November 2007

--As of 11/15/2007 - 'The Impossible Return' will not be used.

[edit] Trivia

I keep removing the trivia section, but keep on being reverted by people who doesn't know much about policies. None of this trivia is sourced, which is key for merging that trivia to the main article. The rest of this trivia should belong in the articles of the players and the statium, not in the main team article themselves. There is nothing to merge Secret ^account 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Montco edits Secret ^account 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely, a couple of bits are pretty easily sourced and some have been incorporated. Other crap, like the jokes, are unsourced and can be pretty generic. WP isn't a joke book and if something is genuinely notable, drop it in Wikiquote. The Baerga thing is a Baerga record, not an Indians record and is more appropriate in the Baerga article. We aren't a repository for every obscure mark that a player makes. Does Lou Boudreau still hold the record for most home runs in a one game playoff? Big deal. The bug thing is more appropriate to Cleveland Stadium or 2007 American League Division Series. Finally, lots of games have been snowed out. Why not drop it in 2007 in baseball? Montco (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict thereMontco (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the jokes were the main sourcing concerns I had, the rest can be easily sourced, but should go to the players articles which is mostly mentioned already. Montco has my exact thoughts in this issue. Thanks Secret ^account 22:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And to the ballpark articles, respectively. The big stadium was notorious for bugs. The Indians themselves weren't, as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just removing the trivia section wholesale, how about figuring out what can and can't be sourced, and what belongs in other articles, and make justified changes to merge the trivia section in an appropriate manner. By removing the entire trivia section, you make it much more difficult for other editors to know what has and hasn't been properly merged elsewhere. Also, WP:TRIVIA notes that the trivia guideline isn't intended to provide justification for simply wiping out trivia sections altogether (messy presentation is better than no presentation). WP:RS is a guideline, one that I think can be temporarily ignored while this process takes place so that good information isn't ultimately lost to the confusion of edit wars.

Please, please, go through each individual trivia statement, attempt to source it, and note for each trivia statement in the edit history whether you were successful in merging it somewhere or not. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the ballpark references are duplicated from the ballpark articles. I don't think they need to be in this article, as they aren't about the Indians per se, just about their venues, so I'll take them away once I confirm that. The lousy play of the Indians, for their last couple of decades in the stadium, is another story... still requiring verification, of course, even though you and I know it to be true.. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's all covered now. Excellent. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much to the folks who carefully reviewed the trivia section and dealt with it appropriately! :) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Indian uprising.jpg

Image:Indian uprising.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OldClevelandIndiansLogo.jpg

Image:OldClevelandIndiansLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Peer Review?

The article had a peer review done a while ago. Since some of us have worked pretty hard to expand the article, anyone think about re-submitting the article for a peer review that might eventually get worked into a WP:GA nomination? Only asking first because I would appreciate the help in getting comments addressed when they arise.

Montco (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: In the "Season-by-Season Results" section, you might want to summarize the current season. Spencer^T♦^C 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No thats just a bad idea Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only team not to win a division title

I admit to being a bit lost at the tidbit that the Indians were the only team in the two-division era not to win a division championship. Seattle never won one either--do they not count because they weren't around for the *entire* era? If that's the case, that should probably be clarified. PeteF3 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the Mariners' first title didn't come until 1995. The article needs to be clear on that point, or else it needs to be dropped as being "unsourced". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarified by adding "non-expansion." A source would be helpful tooFrank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That qualifier makes it rather less significant and makes me wonder what its point is. The teams that formed in 1961 and 1962 won some division titles in the two-division era. In fact, 3 of the 4 of them did. Washington/Texas failed to. So I think that stat is of little value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably would not include it. If it were clear cut, then I would. But at this point, Cleveland is the only team to have played in the entire two-division era that was not an expansion team to fail to win a title. Doesn't really mean much. Montco (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)