Talk:Washington Redskins name controversy
Latest comment: 1 year ago by BD2412 in topic A new phase
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Washington Redskins name controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Daily page views
|
 | Washington Redskins name controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archiving
editLast postings were from about a year ago, moving them to Archive 2 and starting Archive 3.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
A new phase
editIt has been 18 months since the presumed end of this controversy with the name change, yet this article continues to get traffic, and remains relevant in the continuing controversy over elimination of high school mascots.
Going over the content, it now seems realistic to remove more details that have limited relevance going forward. Removing these details would also make the article more readable. WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- If the "details" are reliably sourced, then they are history. Removing history is generally ill-regarded. Can you specify what sort of details you have in mind? BD2412 T 19:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Removal is based upon wp:Notability; when the controversy was current, details may have seemed relevant, but have not stood the test of time. Some details were likely not notable from the beginning, and should never have been included.
- I have also further summarized the trademark case section, the details being preserved in the separate article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- @WriterArtistDC: This, again, is a highly abstract statement. What specific details would you assert have "not stood the test of time" or were "not notable from the beginning"? BD2412 T 23:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
These are the edits I have already made:
- Removing a list of individuals from Native American advocates of change, added a link to the list article List of Washington Redskins name change advocates which contains the same information.
- Removed from the section Civil rights and religious organizations the actions of individuals in a religious context, but not representing any organization, thus not really notable.
- Removed content on an internet prank in 2014 by a small group of recent college grads. This has its own article, so I can link it.
- Moved content from Name change as a business decision which was duplicated in "Name Change" section at the top of the article
- Removed content based upon a single article in the NYTimes, 2014 which is unrelated to any other content. Interesting, but not really notable back then.
- Not related to the above, further summarized Trademark dispute section, which is fully covered in its own article.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thinks that's all I planned to do. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your specificity, this looks like a good set of revisions. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)