Talk:Chief Illiniwek/Archive 1

NPOV text

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.

Vandalsim

Nothing has happened recently, but there will probably be a lot of vandalism, considering the Chief was retired today. (From both pro and anti sides I would imagine). Just a heads up. I am not flaggin it for vandlaism, but it may be needed..... OneWorld22 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

"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)

Actually, over a third of the campus DID vote, which, for ANY college campus is a HUGE turnout, and when 70% of people voted to saev their tradition, enough to pass a constituional ammendment in our Congress, we SHOULD and WILL listen, this vote was much more than many are involved in politics at all, and was done to SAVE OUR TRADITION, and OUR CHIEF Illiniwek. 216.125.251.254

Um, he's not YOUR "Chief" or YOUR "tradition", being that your edit is from a Parkland College student-access IP and not a UIUC IP address. Justinm1978 15:22, 24 May 2007 (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)

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)I add

The article was proven to be done imperically, and by the way your point of trying to point out the your opinion is right and better informed is not just unsupported by the facts, but also your lack of grammicular care does hurt your argument aswell. This poll was done very well, and has only been disputed beacuse the facts disagreed with the "crusade" and "holy way" you have done against our Chief, look at the facts and you will see the real story, not just what you have been told to believe, by people saying it is racist and that they are offended, it is not the majority at all, quite the contrary most Native Americans according to this poll aswell as ones I have spoken to who have seen Chief Illiniwek on their own without being told what to think have thought it revered and honorable, it is made in OUR honor, all Illini, and continues so.

Once again, he's not YOUR "Chief" or YOUR "tradition", being that your edit is from a Parkland College student-access IP and not a UIUC IP address. Justinm1978 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

This apparently needs to be said, people this is totally ludicrous how far it has gone, Politically correctness for right now has got the day, again... I congratulate those ignorant few who so willingly took a radical stance, and only followed what they were told and never seen Chief Illiniwek, or had actually done research themselves. Our Chief will return, when this age of "political correctness" comes crashing down, and no amount of twisting of the facts or "doublethink" or amount of Thought Policing can change that, you may be able to impose your will against the many now, but you cannot change who we are, which is Illini, and we stand still, no matter what we are told to believe. The few cannot impose their will on the many, oligarchies do not work in America, wake up. So I implore people to look at the facts and stop just repeating what people Like Kaufmann and others have said, who I have had the displeasure of corresponding to, you are all just yourselves perpetuating his rhetoric, aswell as the few who wish their views to be everyones, or to do "What they think is best for all", it is time to take a stand, and actually be free thinkers, and make up your own minds, not let others do it for you, comrade. User:Tigerhawk47 11:37, 18 September 2007

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)

The correct term here is not Caucasian...it is European American. The term Caucasian is offensive, hostile, and abusive to those of us of European American ancestry.

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)

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

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)

There have been a few edits regarding mascot vs. symbol. The university and pro-chief groups refer to it as a symbol, while mainstream media/anti-chief people usually refer to the chief as a mascot. A symbol is more respectful, it's essentially a semantic difference. I don't really know which way to resolve this, but as most media observers use mascot, perhaps this should be the standard on this article as well. OneWorld22 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the University's mascot / symbol or whatever, if they call it a symbol then I would think that it should be listed as that here. --Dual Freq 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As a symbol of the university, i believe the university's stance is the most appropriate. Using "mascot" would be against NPOV, since that term is never officially applied, and use of the term would be in the POV of the editor. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a symbol (used on letterhead, sweatshirts, etc.) but also used as a physical, human mascot at games. This is a verifiable fact, though its supporters probably originally thought that by insisting that it isn't a "mascot" makes it okay--better than other university's "Redskin" or "Brave" mascots. The article makes it clear that it's officially called a symbol by the univ. but is also in actuality used as a mascot, so there's no problem. Badagnani 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph discusses the symbol/mascot distinction adequately, and eloquently. The wording that someone is trying to insert in the first sentence is poorly worded and unnecessary. Badagnani 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the university does not recognize it as a mascot, then saying "official mascot" doesn't make any sense, and, in fact, incorrect. The conflict in wording is understandable, but putting a mess like that in the first sentence is not the correct solution. I don't know how anyone could say that using the word "symbol" in NPOV. The University of Illinois recognizes Chief Illiniwek as a symbol. The Chief predated mascots (as stated in the article). How is using "mascot" not NPOV? Regardless of how people percieve the Chief's function, using the word "mascot" IS NOT RECOGNIZED. Therefore, if it's not in the official interest of the PEOPLE WHO USE THE SYMBOL, it is the POV of whoever is adding it in the article. It is not fact. If anything, this goes back to simple logic. All mascots are symbols, but not all symbols are mascots. Symbol is a broader term, and, if anything, would include mascots. The issue as to calling the chief a mascot is addressed only a few lines down the article. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unh-unh. When the Chief takes corporeal, dancing form at a game halftime, it/he becomes a mascot. When it is on letterhead, etc. it is a symbol. There really isn't any confusion over this; what creates confusion is the university's implausible insistence that it's always a "symbol" (even when portrayed by a real dancing student), in the hopes that this will make everything okay, creates confusion. Badagnani 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

When most people think of the chief, they think of the student dancing at halftime; mascot should be the default term but, because of the dispute, including both terms in the first line is appropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

By only using "symbol" in the opening sentence, you are taking a side in the debate over the term. The proponents put forth the unusual distinction as a way to try to elevate the chief above the level of mere "mascot" and tie in with their argument that the chief should not be criticized because it is honorable and respectful of native Americans. Again, by buying into this usage, you are taking one side of the dispute and most definitely not being neutral. The first sentence provides the "official" wikkipedia definition and should absolutely reference the dispute even though it is coverd in slightly more depth later.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

the university's definition is not the last word here; by that logic, since the university retired the chief, it would have to be "the former mascot/symbol..."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

• By Illinois State Law, The official symbol is and remains Chief Illiniwek. What has happened recently is that the Board of Trustees has decided to eliminate his performances. They do not have the authority to remove him as the official school symbol as the Illinois General Assembly will have to change the law to do that. -- Upholder 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• If this is the case, then it seems clear that fans may do their own "Chief dance" performances in defiance of the new rule (the way opposing teams sometimes hanged Chief Illiniwek in effigy, as seen in the "In Whose Honor" documentary). This possibility seems to have been added to the article, then deleted by another editor. Badagnani 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

again, the state of Ill legislature is not the last word here. That was a partisan move by a partisan legislator and to take up that usage reflects their bias.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

Laws are not normally passed by a single partisan legislator, I would think it would require a majority vote and the signature of the Governor. Perhaps the name of the state should be changed as well? --Dual Freq 18:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The other legistlators and the governor went along with it in quid pro quo arrangements. The speciousness of your argument about changing the state name seems to reflect a pro chief bias, a conclusion also supported by your repeated attempts to remove one of the terms and privilege the other. Not neutral. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

Everything I ever heard said that the governor actually vetoed the bill to make him the official mascot, have I heard wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.235.74 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Its the law, 110 ILCS 305/1f or here under 110 ILCS 305/ University of Illinois Act. --Dual Freq 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The legislature stated "Chief Illiniwek is, and may remain, the honored symbol of a great university, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." In legalese, "may" and "shall" are not synonymous. I would interpret this as saying that the legislature endorses the Chief, but is not mandating the existence of the symbol. Justinm1978 20:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sun-Times article confirming the change from "shall remain" to "may remain": http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040429/ai_n12540094 Justinm1978 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For all the wiki-lawyers, 110 ILCS 305/1f or here under 110 ILCS 305/ University of Illinois Act. --Dual Freq 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would help resolve this issue if the article intro differentiated between the actual trademarked "symbol" and the dancing mascot who represents the symbol at the games?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.252.74.48 (talk • contribs).

There is clearly a debate about which term (mascot or symbol) is appropriate and this should be reflected in the opening sentence. Chief supporters and the university insist on the distinction to separate the chief from other mascots and chief detractors insist on the term mascot to support the argument that the chief trivializes revered aspects, if not the entirety, of their culture. To use only one term in the opening lines by necessity shows bias in favor of one position or the other.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

To be neutral, the opening line of the entry must acknowledge both terms. To do otherwise favors one point of view over the other. It is disingenuous to appeal to the university's legalistic definition or the politically motivated state resolution. Insisting on using one term while excluding the other in the introductory line clearly reflects bias toward one side or another.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

Also, please note that I'm not reversing the changes someone else did when they removed all subsequent usage of "mascot" and left only "symbol." These are clearly biased edits but I'm willing to let them stand because, after the reference in the intro and subsequent discussion in the third paragraph, readers can see the bias and make up their own minds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs).

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. --—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Chief Thunderthud has a question-um

How long-um and during what times-um have fake Indian-um steryotapes like-um me-um and Chief Illinywek been popular-um with the White Man and the Americans? How-um does this-um steryotaping tie-um in with-um the popularity of Chief Illinywek? Clarabell-um has been driving-um me NUTS over this bird dropping-um all weekend! (and getting the paper wet from his seltzer-um doesn't help-um.) Cowabunga! - Chief Thunderthud (ok, ok, 204.52.215.107 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Read this book; if it doesn't answer your questions, come back.

• Spindel, Carol (2002). Dancing at Halftime: Sports and the Controversy Over American Indian Mascots. Updated edition, with a new afterword. New York: New York University Press. Badagnani 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks-um. I'll try-um and see-um if it's in the Doodyville Library-um. 204.52.215.107 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What about your Rutgers Scarlet Knight? It may offend someone by reminding them about the crusades, better change it back to the chicken so no one is offended. --Dual Freq 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Point kinda taken-um.204.52.215.107 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I admit to writing one of the editorials mentioned in that link. What happened was that University of Illinois protesters of the Chief (well, a protester, anyhow) wrote a piece that appeared in the Daily Targum criticizing Illiniwek, who was not our mascot and had nothing to do with us - but who happened to be the mascot of the opposing football team that week. First of all, I felt the writers to be carpetbagging their issue onto someone else's soil, and second, I felt the editorial to be showing only one side of what was obviously a multi-sided debate. So I presented another side - and, of course, got argued back against, and, as far as I know, the issue faded away at Rutgers as our football season steamrolled on very favorably for us. Now? I'm not sure whether keeping the Chief was the right thing or not. The dance - no, not specifically dancing Indian-style, but the IDEA of dancing in some sort of costume as a show - was a good thing, but the ersatz Native Americanness of the mascot was plainly offensive because it led to bullying of Native Americans. However, removal of the fake Native American was also plainly offensive because it was an act of vandalism to those used to seeing Illiniwek do his dancing, and to those who love the Chief as a school symbol - think of the removal of the Statue of Liberty... Seeing as the Illiniwek issue is a Catch-22, I'm undecided on whether to keep or delete the Chief, and, besides, it's not really my battle, seeing as it's not my school. Just my tuppence. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that the article I responded to apparently isn't in the Targum archives (dagnabbit). I guess the copyright for that one came from somewhere other than the Targum. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Item number 2. One of the two Targum responders to me accused me of calling a people "savage". That was not my intent. I intended to allude to the Noble Savage, a literary meme or type of character, a figure, not an actual person or a group. Maybe I should've pointed out what I meant by "Noble Savage", but then it probably would've made too long an editorial. Anyway, I'll get back to work now. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Chiefs?

Can we find a list of chiefs anywhere that includes the assistants? I don't mind Peter Kim's name being there if we can find some evidence other than Peter Kim's word. Not saying I don't believe him, but anybody can go back and say "sure, I was Assistant Chief Illiniwek in 1980-something", and there really isn't a way to validate the statement. The only reference I can find is from a Fraternity's webpage that lists him as "an understudy" Justinm1978 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Justin, I'm afraid there is no "official" listing of assistant Chiefs, to my knowledge. I could scan in a photo of myself and add it to the page. Please know that the Assistant Chief is a legitimate position - the current/retiring Chief (Dan Maloney) was previously the Assistant Chief. I guess I could provide further validation from either Bill Forsyth or Scott Rose, who were the Chiefs when I served as Assistant Chief. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by F40pik3 (talk • contribs)

Not to be crass, but if there is no official listing of Assistant Chiefs, then that person wasn't truly Chief Illiniwek. I'm not trying to belittle the service and work you performed as the assistant chief, but that's like saying the Vice-President gets to count themselves amongst the list of Presidents because they acted as their assistant. Justinm1978 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This information on the students who portrayed the Chief probably shouldn't even be in the opening paragraph -- especially since the prose has changed somewhat to remove that it is normally performed by a white student. Since obviously there have been at least 3 - 4 performers of non-European descent, it doesn't make sense to keep that in the intro, and the individual names look out of place. --MattWright (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agreee, and based on the rewrite that has been posted not listing the "white/causasian/european" thing, I've stricken it from the page. I agree that it is worth noting that the chief was portrayed by primarily caucasian students (with a few notable exceptions), but not in the opening paragraph. Anybody want to add it in somewhere in the controversy section? Justinm1978 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Honor the Chief Society has what would appear to be a reliable list of chiefs. --Dual Freq 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Section

I have two problems with the introduction section.

• The claim concerning "the view of many Native Americans". "Many" in this context is a weasel word. What does "many" mean in this context? If it means the majority, this is a very powerful claim and requires a reference to back it up.
• Mascot? Isn't the official position of the UofI that Cheif Illiniwek is not a mascot, rather he is a symbol? There is a very important distiction between a mascot and a symbol.

Boonukem 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

When it apppeared on letterhead, sweatshirts, etc., it was a symbol. When in physical form, in the form of a non-American Indian student dancing at athletic events, it was a mascot. The university, wishing to avoid controversy, claimed that it always was a "symbol," even when dancing at athletic events in the manner of a typical sports mascot, but in reality that manifestation of the Chief was indeed a mascot. It's quite simple actually. Within an institution or culture, definitions may be quite different than the "conventional" defnition. For example, some charismatic/Pentecostal Chirstian churches do not permit dancing in church, yet the rhythmic motion of the parishioners would likely be called "dancing" by outsiders (though church members would deny that anyone "dances" in their church); some African American congregations state that if the legs cross while moving, that is dancing, but if the legs do not cross, as in the Ring Shout of the Georgia and South Carolina Sea Islands, then it is not a dance at all. Badagnani 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

@Badagnani: Ok lots of words, that do not address my question, but anyway I will respond to some of them.

• Whether or not the student acting as CI was American Indian, Irish or Sudanese is not relavent. To claim otherwise is the same racism the critics of the cheif complain of.
• "dancing at athletic events in the manner of a typical sports mascot"... ehh... which other so called sports mascot performs a re-enactment based on a traditional dance?

To help redirect the discussion to my question: the denotation of a mascot is something which is thought to bring luck; the connotation is that a mascot is something less important than what it belongs to, like a pet . A symbol is something which represents another thing, equal to what it represents.Boonukem 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of American Indians, unless one is entirely ignorant of American history the fact of which ethnic group is doing the representing and which ethnic group is being represented is of the utmost importance. Regarding the authenticity of the Chief Illiniwek dance, I have just watched the Chief Illiniwek dance on YouTube and do not find it to closely resemble traditional American Indian dance. Further, I have just read the Mascot article and the dancing version of Chief Illiniwek does fit the definition, without any question. The University of Illinois' Board of Trustees, and you, seem to be the only people who maintain that the dancing Chief Illiniwek is not any sort of sports mascot. That's fine; as I mentioned above, language and definitions are flexible. Badagnani 02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, definitions are not flexible, the point of having a definition is to distinguish one word from another. Otherwise you get "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"Boonukem 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The flexibility comes when a particular culture or subculture develops an individual definition to fit their individual needs (as in the example of churches who steadfastly maintain that no one ever dances in their church, when for all intents and purposes, from a common-sense definition, the church-goers are indeed dancing). One must respect the minority's definition while recognizing it for what it is. And such is the statement (born essentially, in the case of Chief Illiniwek, out of the necessity to not be banned, like earlier collegiate mascots based on American Indians, such as the former Miami University Redskins, which are now the RedHawks) by the University of Illinois Trustees that the dancing Chief Illiniwek is no form of mascot. Badagnani 03:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of words

This whole issue revolves around the difference between a mascot and a symbol. After years of watching tv and seeing comical sideshows at sporting events, the average person can not make a distinction between a tribute and a joke. The politicians, betting on the usefullness of the average idiot, have won.Boonukem 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro chief people have been playing a semantic game, trying to elevate the student dancing at halftime above other mascots. He is a mascot. We're willing to let the idiosyncratic term "symbol" into the entry, but not without caveats. The pro chief people insist on the term "symbol" as part of their argument that the chief somehow honors and shows respect to Indians. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of Indians have rejected this so called honor and hollow respect. Be careful about charging that others are not able to differentiate between tributes and jokes as well as making claims about others being useful idiots. (24 feb 07; 10:04 cst) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.197.75 (talk • contribs) 16:04, February 24, 2007 (UTC)

The issue revolves around whether the Chief is offensive or not, not whether he is a mascot or a symbol. The only purpose in making it about those two words is to muddy the debate into something it's not. 74.195.235.74 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is your point? Are you implying that Chief Illiniwek's dance is not offensive to anyone? That's quite a stretch. Badagnani 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Never said it wasn't, just that the issue wasn't about what Boonukem is saying it's about. 74.195.235.74 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Source conflict

The official University history says "None of the student Chiefs have been Native Americans." If you want to link images link to the source not to a forum website like free republic. What is the source that says she was from Oklahoma? --Dual Freq 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

From a [Google search I found an obituary for BROOKS, Idelle S., died age 84 in November 2006. The Google cache version says she was born in Oklahoma City, OK and mentions that she was Princess Illiniwek. It says nothing about here ancestry except parents names. I have no idea about genealogy, but according to this, Stith is Scottish and this says Idelle is welsh. No idea what her mother's maiden name was, but her first name was Eleanor.--Dual Freq 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

So how did she end up living on the Osage Reservation? And why are editors claiming that she was Osage? The photo states that she was an "authentic Osage princess." Badagnani 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked to the photo simply because it was a photo of the person purported to be Osage, with a caption stating "authentic Osage princess." Badagnani 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A great many American Indians have Anglo last names, often due to missionary influence. In this case, the origin of "Brooks" won't tell you much more than researching such a surname would do for African Americans. Badagnani 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point about surnames. A bunch of WP:OR on my part indicates using Ancestry dot com searching 1930 census records shows Idelle living in Osage, OK with Parents Raymond and Eleanor and siblings Raymond and Juliet. I'm not paying 30 bucks to find out where the father was born. I have no idea why they would be living in Osage OK if they weren't native Americans, and I don't know why the UIUC history would say none were native Americans, unless its a technicality that she wasn't the Chief, but Princess. I still think a more reliable ref than Free Republic is required for this statement. --Dual Freq 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This PDF says Fairfax, OK and that she was an "authentic honorary princess of the Osage Indian tribe" (emphasis mine). It also says she lived on the reservation because her father was a lawyer "dealing with Indian Affairs". Maybe the UIUC statement of "None" is correct after all. --Dual Freq 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I gotta hand it to you, that is some of the most excellent WP research I've seen. You need some huge barnstar or some such for this. You cut through the crap swiftly and elegantly, and the truth came to the surface. Great job. Badagnani 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Board of Trustees vote not kosher?

A member of the Board of Trustees says that it was the Executive Committee that made the decision to retire the chief, and that the Board of Trustees needed a vote by the entire Board to rescind earlier actions by the entire Board (see here) - and since the Chief was acclaimed as an official symbol by the entire Board, the Executive Committee action wasn't kosher and thus the Chief is still an official symbol. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, the official release never said anything about the Chief no longer being an official symbol, only that he will stop performing. I'm not sure how this could be appropriately fit in, and even the fate of the logo (the only part that truly remains at this point) is in question. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAMBI states that no references by John Bambenek can be included in Wikipedia. His content and comments are censored and not to be mentioned under punishment of a permaban. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.138.6 (talk • contribs)

• Haha at WP:BAMBI. I agree that we shouldn't use the word "was" if the Board of Trustees of the University still considers it to still be the symbol. Until there is definitive documentation from the University administration as a whole that it is not to be used, it shouldn't be considered to have happened yet. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)