Talk:Chief Illiniwek/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, but referenda mean jack - the BoT has sole control over the issue. Thesquire 15:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalsim

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How do I dispute or requets a change to the article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Caucasian 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Toilet paper 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Dance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Point kinda taken-um.204.52.215.107 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Howdy Doody|Chief Thunderthud]] has a question-um 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source conflict 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Board of Trustees vote not kosher?